Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1052 (ALL)

Komal v. State of U. P. Through Secretary Home

2022-07-11

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Khanna, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by respondent no.3/ District Supply Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting the petitioner's application to grant her compassionate appointment, as fair price shop agent at Prakhand-1, Nayapura, Stanley Road, Prayagraj. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner's grand father namely Ram Naresh was the fair price shop agent at the above described location. It is the petitioner's case that the said Ram Naresh ran the fair price shop without any complaint till his death on 23.3.2019. He was survived by his three sons - Uma Shanker (petitioner's father), Shiv Shanker and Roop Chand and, two married daughters - Smt. Abhilasha and Smt. Kamlesh. According to the petitioner, she has two brothers namely -Vishal and Avinash and, one sister namely Smt. Ruchi. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner claims dependency on her grand father, during his lifetime. Accordingly, she claims entitlement to compassionate appointment re the fair price shop agency held by the deceased Ram Naresh, in his place. Reliance has been placed on three decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No. 2899 of 2015, decided on 20.7.2016; Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020, decided on 3.9.2020 and; Akansha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ - C No. 32296 of 2021, decided on 4.12.2021. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He would submit, family of a fair price dealer has been described in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ - C No. 32296 of 2021, decided on 4.12.2021. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He would submit, family of a fair price dealer has been described in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019. It reads : ^^;fn fdlh uxjh; {ks= dk mfpr nj foØsrk vFkok mlds ifjokj ds lnL;] lHkkln ;k v/;{k dk pquko thr tkrk gS rks mlds vFkok mlds ifjokj ds lnL; ds uke py jgh mfpr nj nqdku dk vuqcU/k mls rRdky lefiZr djuk gksxk vU;Fkk Á'uxr vuqcU/k fujLr ?kksf"kr dj fn;k tk;sxkA ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk ogh gksxh] tks m0 Á0 vko';doLrq ¼forj.k ds fofu;e dk fu;a=.k½ vkns'k 2016 esa nh x;h gS& ifjokj dk eqf[k;kA ifr@iRuh fof/kd #i ls viuk;s x;s nRrd lUrku lfgrA lUrku tks ifjokj ds eqf[k;k ij iw.kZ #i ls vkfJr gksA vfookfgr] fof/kd #i ls i`Fkd vkSj fo/kok csVh] vkSj ifjokj ds eqf[k;k ij iw.kZ #i ls vkfJr erk@firkA^^ 7. Relying on that definition, it has been submitted, petitioner is a grand-daughter of the deceased fair price shop agent Ram Naresh. She is neither included under any of the specific relationships included (as noted above), nor she has shown herself to be wholly dependent on the deceased Ram Naresh as would entitle her to claim grant of compassionate appointment. 8. With respect to the decisions relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted, those are decisions on facts. They do not lay down the law. Therefore, they have no binding efficacy. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the facts are undisputed. The petitioner is the grand-daughter of the deceased fair price shop agent Ram Naresh. The petitioner's father Uma Shankar is alive. Therefore, considering societal practice and behaviour, that fortunate circumstance itself strongly suggests existence of dependency of the petitioner on her father, if at all. It is especially so -in view of inclusion of unmarried or legally separated or widowed daughter as a dependent of her father (not grandfather) under Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019. Also, the definition of the family given in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019 has not been challenged. Beyond that relations -at one level up and below are included in the definition of family along with spouse of the fair price shop agent. Also, the definition of the family given in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019 has not been challenged. Beyond that relations -at one level up and below are included in the definition of family along with spouse of the fair price shop agent. No special fact was pleaded either before the authority or before this Court, by the petitioner, to claim her dependency on her grand-father Ram Naresh, during the lifetime of her father. 10. What survives for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of fair price shop agency on the strength of three decisions of this Court, referred to above. Here, it may be noted, in Ashok Kumar (supra), fair price shop agent died on 12.3.2014. Petitioner Ashok Kumar was his grandson. However, it was his specific case noted in paragraph 3 (of the order dated 20.7.2016 passed in that case), that the father of Ashok Kumar had pre-deceased his father. Similarly, in Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra), in paragraph 3 of the order dated 3.9.2020, it was specifically recorded, Hausila Prasad (father of that petitioner) had pre-deceased his father Sitaram Yadav, the duly appointed fair price shop agent in that case. In Akansha Singh (supra), again, father of that petitioner had pre-deceased his father. In paragraph 3 of that report, it has been noted, the grand father of the petitioner Dharam Pal Singh died on 31.12.2020. He was survived by that petitioner's grand mother, mother and sister (but not father). 11. Thus, in all cases, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, father of all those petitioners had pre-deceased their father, who happened to be the deceased fair price shop agent. Thus, the question whether those petitioners were dependent on their respective father, on the date of their claim being made, did not arise. In fact, each of those petitioners claimed to be wholly dependent on their grand father, for the reason of prior death of their own father. 12. Even otherwise, it is not for the Court to legislate or frame policy decisions. Once, the policy is not shown to include a grandchild in the definition of family of a fair price shop agent, that rule (in law) may never arise on the strength of indulgence granted by the Court in individual facts of a case. 13. On account of the above, the decisions relied are found to be wholly distinguishable. Once, the policy is not shown to include a grandchild in the definition of family of a fair price shop agent, that rule (in law) may never arise on the strength of indulgence granted by the Court in individual facts of a case. 13. On account of the above, the decisions relied are found to be wholly distinguishable. There is no substance in the claim of the petitioner. The same has been rightly rejected. 14. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.