Disposed

Naval Kumar Arya v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Nov 2022WPSS/159/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is an order disposing of a writ petition by directing the Executive Officer to examine the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a regular employee of the respondent body, while the petitioner was on sympathetic leave.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Officer to examine the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and take a decision within eight weeks.

Naval Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			W PSS 1 5 9 / 2 0 2 2 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
			Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder, for the State/ respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate, for the respondents no. 3 and 4. Petitioner’s father, who was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhimtal, died while in service on 8.3.2017. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, however, his claim has not been considered so far. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad. The only defence taken in the counter affidavit is that after death of petitioner’s father, petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on sympathetic consideration.
			Defence offered in the counter affidavit is not satisfactory. If petitioner’s father was a regular employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, then petitioner has a right to be considered for compassionate appointment under the applicable rules.
			Since petitioner’s claim has not been considered so far, therefore, writ petition is disposed of by directing the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhimtal to examine petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and take

¶2

appropriate eight weeks certified copy	decision, from the of this or	as per law, within date of production of der.
Pr	( Man oj	Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 0 .1 1 .2 0 2 2

Naval Kumar Arya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naval Kumar Arya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Pandit Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Secretariat Dehradun

Tripti Kapoor Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vidya Mandir Society Vs Jaan Mohamad

Virendra Singh Vs Kailashanand Giri

Prakash Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nand Kishore Vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Haridwar