Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3174 (ALL)

Kamalbhan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-09-16

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner's father was a Class IV employee in respondent no. 1. Unfortunately he died in harness. The petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. His application was rejected by the respondent no. 2 on 1.10.2012 and by a subsequent order dated 22.11.2012. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of Writ Petition No. 399 of 2013. The said writ petition was allowed on 13.11.2013 with the following directions: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 1st October, 2012 and 22nd November, 2012 passed by opposite party no. 2, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. He has further prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint him on compassionate ground. Argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel is that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation on the ground that at the relevant time i.e. in the 2009 the Corporation was suffering from losses. The loss was for the one year only and in the year 2012 by means of orders contained in Annexure Nos. 10, 11 and 12 respectively several persons had been given appointment by the Corporation on compassionate ground, but the petitioner has been discriminated. Considering the fact that now the Corporation has been revived and is running in profit, the Executive Director, U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation, Lucknow, is hereby directed to re-examine the issue of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before him, ignoring the orders dated 1st October, 2012 and 22nd November, 2012 passed by opposite party no. 2, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally." 2. In compliance thereof the impugned order has been passed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the clear direction in the earlier order dated 13.11.2013 wherein the ground taken for rejection of the petitioner's claim that the corporation was suffering from loss has been set aside and the Court has directed them to consider the matter afresh. The respondent no. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the clear direction in the earlier order dated 13.11.2013 wherein the ground taken for rejection of the petitioner's claim that the corporation was suffering from loss has been set aside and the Court has directed them to consider the matter afresh. The respondent no. 2 has again rejected claim of petitioner on the same ground. 3. It is stated that the second respondent has adopted the provision of U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. A counter affidavit was filed wherein the stand taken by the second respondent is that a Government Order dated 11.7.2003 wherein directions have been issued to all the corporations and the government undertakings that in case they are running in loss in that event the appointment on compassionate ground should not be made. It is also stated that in one such case the State Government has declined to grant approval. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Undisputedly Rules, 1974 has been adopted by the respondents. In the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that now the corporation is in profit. In view of the said fact the Government Order dated 11.7.2003 wherein it is mentioned that if the corporation is running in loss is not attracted in the present case. In regard to the communication dated 31.6.2014 in respect of some other employees the said communication does not have any legal status as it is merely a correspondence between Special Secretary and the Executive Director. The appointment on compassionate ground is an exception under the Rules, 1974. The main object of the appointment on compassionate ground is to give succour to the family which is living in indigent circumstances and they have no other source of livelihood. It is true that Supreme Court in a large number of cases has held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right if there is no provision under the Rule/Statute. But once the corporation has adopted the Rules, 1974 then it is bound by the provisions of the said Rules. 6. Moreover in the case at hand the finding which has been recorded by the respondent no. 2 is that the corporation is in profit. In view of the above the impugned order needs interference. But once the corporation has adopted the Rules, 1974 then it is bound by the provisions of the said Rules. 6. Moreover in the case at hand the finding which has been recorded by the respondent no. 2 is that the corporation is in profit. In view of the above the impugned order needs interference. In previous decision this Court has clearly mentioned that respondent shall pass the order ignoring the previous orders dated 1.10.2012 and 22.11.2012. In both the said orders the same grounds were reiterated. Thus it was not proper for the second respondent to take the same ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment once those grounds have not found favour by this Court and an appropriate direction was issued to ignore those grounds. 7. For the abovestated reasons the impugned order needs to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. 8. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove within six weeks. The second respondent shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of the compassionate appointment, there should not be any loss of time and as such the matter be decided within the period mentioned above. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.