High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Anjani Pratap Singh ( S/S 3584/2005 ) v. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Panchayati Raj & 2 Ors. - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 955 of 2007  RD-AH 18372 (28 November 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Special Appeal No.955 of 2007
Anjani Pratap Singh ......Appellant
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Hon'ble U.K. Dhaon, J.
Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Pandey, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The instant Special Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 05.10.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
The brief facts of the case are that father of the appellant late Sri Shiv Singh was working as Senior Clerk with the State Election Commission, U.P. who died in harness on 21.2.2002. After the death of his father, the appellant, who was intermediate at the relevant time, moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974.
The record reveals that the case of the appellant was recommended by the Officer Incharge Election Commission Pilibhit the letter dated 08.08.2002 for appointment on Class-III post, but the appellant was given appointment on Class IV post by the order dated 30.01.2003 passed by Secretary State Election Commission U.P. Lucknow.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider that the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was on Class III post and Class III post was also lying vacant at the relevant time as evident from the letter dated 16.09.2003. He further submits that under compelling circumstance, the appellant was forced to join on Class IV post. He further submits that although the writ petition was filed in the year 2005, but no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. He further submits that appointment on Class III post has been given by the respondents even to the dependants of the person who were working on Class IV post.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble the Single Judge and once the appellant has accepted the appointment on Class IV post he cannot reagitate the matter for appointment on Class III post.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is admitted case of the parties that father of the appellant died in harness on 21.02.2002 and after the death of the father the appellant moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1974).
The record reveals that the case of the appellant was recommended by the Officers Incharge on 08.08.2002 for appointment on Class III post, which was vacant but instead of appointing the appellant on Class III post, the appointment letter was issued on 30.01.2003 appointing the appellant on Class IV post.
It is admitted case of the parties that when the recommendation was made on 08.08.2002 Class III post was vacant and, at the relevant time, the appellant was having requisite qualification for appointment on Class III post.
The record also reveals that on 16.09.2003 recommendation was also made by the Secretary, State Election Commission to the State Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class III post. It is also evident that on 03.12.2004 a communication was sent by the District Magistrate, Pilibhit to the State Election Commission in which the work and conduct of the appellant was appreciated and recommendation was made for appointment of the appellant on Class III post. We are of the view that while passing the judgment and order dated 05.10.2007 Hon'ble the Single Judge has failed to consider these aspects of the matter. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The appellant accepted the appointment of Class IV post under compelling circumstances but that will not debar him from agitating the matter for his rightful claim in accordance with the qualification. The impugned judgment and order is legally not sustainable.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.10.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge is set aside and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on Class III post, in accordance with law, within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.