Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 7 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 17124 (4 October 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

     Court No. 27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  7  of 2004

Anil Kumar singh  ......................................................    Petitioner's

Versus

State of U.P. & others ...............................................  Respondents

----------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the respondent no. 2.   The claim of the petitioner  for grant of compassionate appointment on account of the death of father late Indra Bali Singh, has been rejected by the impugned order.   The father of the petitioner died on 2.12.1975 who was working as Laboratory Instructor in Handia Polytechnic, Handia, Allahabad. The petitioner was minor at the time of death.  After attaining majority an application was filed on 27.10.1993 which has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons given in the order for rejecting the application are not correct. He submits  that according to proviso to rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974  the State Government is empowered to relax the period for filing an application.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

Admittedly the petitioner's father died on 2.12.1975. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner has disclosed his age as 28 years. From the age as mentioned in the affidavit it is clear that the petitioner was not even  one year's old  when his father died.   The application of the petitioner was made on 27.101993 i.e. about eighteen years after the death of his father.  The apex Court in 2000 (7) SCC 192 Sanjay Kumar  Versus State of Bihar & others  held that claim of  compassionate appointment after eight years of attaining majority can not be granted. The object and purpose of giving compensatory  appointment is to take out the family from the adversity caused due to the sudden demise of bread earner. Consideration of claim for  compassionate appointment   after 18 years of death cannot be made nor any error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application. No grounds have been made out to grant any relief in exercise of  jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

D/-4.10.2006

SCS


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.