Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. KAUSER SIDDIQUI versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohd. Kauser Siddiqui v. State Of U.P. Thru' Chief Engineer Irrigation Deptt. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 3885 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1555 (20 January 2006)

 

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. ARUN TANDON, J.

The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment subsequent to the death of his father Late Moin Uddin who had expired on 12.4.2005 has been rejected on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant, Dying-in-Harness  Rules, 1974 are not attracted in the case of  daily wagers/work charged employees.  This Court in series of judgments has held that the daily-wager/work charge employees, who have put in long years of service are also covered within the purview of the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant, Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.  Reference may be made to the judgments in the cases of Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others; 1991 (18) ALR 591, Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (4) ESC (Alld.) 1615 and Anju Mishra Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan; (2004) 1 UPLBEC, 201.  

However, the learned Standing Counsel points out that the aforesaid judgments of this Court have been referred to the Larger Bench for reconsidering the matter under order dated 9th March, 2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15505 of 2005 (Pavan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others).  Till date the judgments referred to above, have not been over-ruled nor their operation has been suspended under any order of Division Bench.

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the impugned order dated 6.10.2005 be quashed and the authority be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit, Santosh Kumar and Anju Mishra (Supra), within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Respondent no. 3.  The Respondent no. 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Respondent no. 3.  The appointment, if any, offered to the petitioner shall be subject to the out come of the reference made under order dated 9th March, 2005 in the case of Pavan Kumar Yadav (Supra).  

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition disposed of finally.

Dated: 20.1.2006

V.R./3885/06


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.