Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMENDRA NATH MAURYA versus COLLECTOR OF MAHRAJGANJ AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramendra Nath Maurya v. Collector Of Mahrajganj And Another - WRIT - A No. - 5730 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 17055 (29 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5730 of 1997

Ramendra Nath Maurya

Versus

Collector of Maharajganj and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner's father had been performing and discharging duties as seasonal collection Amin on temporary basis with effect from 15.02.1976 and his engagement was extended from time to time, and ultimately, he was confirmed on 01.03.1991. As the luck of petitioner would have been, his father died on 09.01.1993. After his death claim was set up by petitioner for compassionate appointment. Said claim of petitioner was accepted and he was offered appointment as collection peon. Thereafter on 28.02.1996 order has been passed cancelling the compassionate appointment of petitioner on the ground that his father was illegally appointed and services of 7 other incumbents, appointed along with his father, had been dispensed with by order dated 06.11.1995.

Sri S.P. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that petitioner's father had been performing and discharging duties since 1976 and thereafter his services had been confirmed in accordance with law and as he died in harness, rightful appointment has been offered to petitioner, and this fact is substantiated from the fact that pursuant to direction issued by this Court in a separate proceeding, petitioner's mother has been paid family pension and other post retiral dues, as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that once appointment of petitioner's father itself was found to be illegal, then rightly order appointing petitioner on compassionate basis has been withdrawn, as such no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, qua the facts, that petitioner's father had been engaged as seasonal collection Amin on 15.02.1976 and he continued to work, and ultimately he was confirmed on 01.03.1991, there is no dispute. As he was confirmed employee, petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate ground. Said appointment has been sought to be cancelled on the ground that appointment of certain other incumbents appointed along with the petitioner's father, had been cancelled on 06.11.1995. Petitioner's father was working since 1976 and was confirmed in the year 1991. It has not at all been disclosed, that seven other incumbents, who were confirmed along with petitioner's father had also put in such long period of service. Petitioner's father after being confirmed, had died. No order can be passed against a dead person, and that too without affording opportunity of hearing to his legal heirs, who were going to be directly affected, on account of passing of such order. Without undertaking any serious exercise in mechanical manner, as such cancellation of appointmentof seven incumbents cannot be made foundation and basis to non-suit the claim of petitioner, and same violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. Keeping in view long length of service rendered by petitioner's father, which ultimately stood confirmed, and the fact that petitioner's mother has been allowed family pension and other post retiral dues in lieu of service rendered by petitioner's father, impugned order dated 16.11.1996 is not sustainable.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 16.11.1996 is hereby quashed. Admittedly, petitioner has not worked since 16.11.1996 till date, as such for this period no remuneration would be admissible to him. However, earlier service rendered by petitioner shall be treated to be continuity in service for other benefits.

29.10.2007

SRY


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.