Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMIYA SRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amiya Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 22832 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9121 (14 May 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.9.2006 passed by the State Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate  appointment.  Ram Kishore Lal  Lekhpal died on 9.10.1996.  The petitioner claimed to be his adopted son.  After about nine years of death an application was made by the petitioner for compassionate  appointment  which was recommended to the State Government. It is also stated that the petitioner's legal guardian also moved an application in 2001 informing that the petitioner is minor and post be kept reserved till he take majority.  Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Government is empowered under proviso to rule 5 of the U. P. Recruitment of dependants  of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 to condone the delay in  entertaining the application and the State Government has mechanically rejected the claim of the  petitioner.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  

There is no dispute that the employee died on 9.10.1996 and the petitioner after  attaining majority  moved an application after nine years.  The object and purpose of the  compassionate  appointment is to give immediate relief to the family. The compassionate  appointment cannot be granted after long lapse of time. The apex Court in 2000(7) S.C.C. 192 Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar  upheld the order of the High Court rejecting the claim where the applicant after attaining the majority moved an application for compassionate  appointment after  eight years.  Proviso to rule 5 of the 1974 Rules is an enabling  provision which can be exercised  by the State Government in appropriate case. The State Government  has not exercised this enabling provision ; in favour of the petitioner nor in the facts of the present case  any case is made out for  issuing any writ of mandamus to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.        

D/-14.5.2007

SCS/22832


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.