Divyansh Pandey vs University of Allahabad and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2280 Reserved on 02.01.2025 Delivered on 07.01.2025

Court No. - 10

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4035 of 2024

Petitioner :- Divyansh Pandey Respondent :- University of Allahabad and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Diptiman Singh,Kunal Ravi Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

1 . In the present case, father of petitioner died in harness on 20.01.2014 while working in Respondent-University as Office Assistant.

¶7

2 . Initially petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment, however, it was rejected on ground of higher qualification. Later on petitioner’s mother submitted an application on 03.01.2018 for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground, which was duly received in the office of Respondent-University.

¶8

3 . It appears that said application remained pending before RespondentUniversity and on 08.06.2020 petitioner was called for consideration of his application. Thereafter matter again remained pending with RespondentUniversity and finally vide order dated 23.02.2022 application of petitioner was rejected without assigning any reason.

¶9

4 . Petitioner thereafter filed Writ-A No. 6731 of 2023, which was decided alongwith other three writ petitions by this Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2023, being Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:120052 and impugned order was set aside and matter was remitted back to pass a fresh order with direction to look into as to what rules would prevail in matters of compassionate appointment, whether those prevalent on the date of death of bread earner or prevalent on the date of consideration of their respective claim.

¶10

5 . Respondent-University vide order dated 17.10.2023 rejected claim of petitioner on ground that application fails to comply with Clause I of the set norms vide Office Memorandum No. 05/R/763/2021 dated 22.09.2021. For reference Clause I is reproduced hereinafter:

¶11

2

¶12

“I. Death of the employee (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’) should have taken place in the past five Calendar year only (say for 2021, death should have taken place between 2016 and 2020).”

¶13

6 . Aforesaid order dated 17.10.2023 in impugned in present writ petition.

¶14

7 . I find merit in the argument of Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, that an important aspect was not taken note of by RespondentUniversity that petitioner has filed his claim within four years of death of his father (petitioner’s father died on 20.01.2014 and application for compassionate appointment was filed on 03.01.2018). Said fact has not been denied by Respondent-University either in impugned order or in pleadings before this Court.

¶15

8 . Court also takes note that a specific ground is taken as Ground No. J, i.e., “Because it is stated that petitioner’s claim is not liable to be rejected as he has raised the claim within 5 years of the death of his father”. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent-University, so far as above ground is concerned, reply in para 57 is very vague as it is stated, “the grounds stated in the writ petition are not made out”.

¶16

9 . The matter remained pending before Respondent-University and it appears that they started correspondence only in the year 2020, i.e., after more than two years of filing of application. Reason for such delay cannot be considered to be attributable to petitioner for the purpose of considering, whether claim of petitioner was filed within time or not.

¶17

10 . Once petitioner filed his claim within five years (in the present case it is actually within four years), his claim cannot be rejected on ground that when application was considered it was not within five years on the date of consideration. This part of policy is not only arbitrary but against the interest of employees also. This clause of policy will give an advantage to University that in order to reject any claim they can sit over the matter upto the date so that date of consideration goes beyond the period of five years, which on face it is an illegal and incorrect approach.

¶18

3

¶19

11 . In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.10.2023 passed by University of Allahabad through its Registrar, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Respondent-University to pass a fresh order with direction that claim of petitioner will not be rejected on ground that it is considered after five years, as it is not in dispute that claim was filed within four years of date of death of petitioner’s father.

¶20

Order Date :- 07.01.2025 AK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Divyansh Pandey v. University of Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyansh Pandey v. University of Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramdhan Singh Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh and 15 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramdular vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nisha Mishra vs Union of India and 2 Others

Kumkum vs State of Up and 5 Others