Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1727 (ALL)

Jitendra Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-11-02

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.9.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 and also the order dated 22.9.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2, in so far as it relates to the petitioner. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to produce the record of the 146th meeting of the Board of Directors dated 30.3.2000 and set aside the ban imposed on compassionate appointment and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner late Mohar Singh died in harness while working on the post of Sales Officer in Maudaha, Chitrakoot Dham, Division Banda on 27.5.2019. The petitioner is post graduate from Rohilkhand University and is also Diploma holder in Software Technical from Private Institute. He being eligible for appointment on compassionate ground had filed an application for the same on 19.6.2019. In the said application, the financial hardships being faced by the petitioner and also his family members is mentioned. After completing all formalities for compassionate appointment, when no decision was taken thereon, the mother of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17923 of 2019 which was disposed of by this Court on 16.11.2019 directing the mother of the petitioner to file a representation which should be decided by the authorities concerned by means of a reasoned and speaking order. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi thereafter made a fresh representation and when no heed was paid, she filed a Contempt Application No. 3130 of 2021. After such Contempt Application was filed, the case of the petitioner had been rejected by the order dated 22.9.2021 saying that in terms of Government Order dated 22.1.2000, the scheme for compassionate appointment is not applicable to U.P. State of Agro Industrial Corporation. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of Government Order dated 22.1.2000 some meeting was held by the Board of Directors on 30.3.2000 details of which have not been given to the petitioner, despite his repeated requests. 5. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of Government Order dated 22.1.2000 some meeting was held by the Board of Directors on 30.3.2000 details of which have not been given to the petitioner, despite his repeated requests. 5. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon his counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that by means of Government Order issued by the Competent Authority dated 22.1.2000, the Scheme for compassionate appointment was withdrawn in so far as the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation was concerned it was running into huge losses. 6. In pursuance of such Government Order, the Board of Directors in their 146th meeting held on 30.3.2000 by Agenda No. 6 decided to do away with the Scheme of compassionate appointment. 7. The counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon by orders passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 8009 of 2008 (Pankaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) and in Writ Appeal No. 70690 of 2006 (Gaurav Singh Chauhan vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 21.12.2012 and 8.1.2013 respectively, wherein the Court took note of the Government Order dated 22.1.2000 and the consequential Resolution of the Board dated 30.3.2000. 8. The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has opposed such submissions. According to him, the petitioner's father died on 24.2.1999 and therefore, the Government Order dated 22.1.2000 shall not have retrospective operation. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties at bar, this Court has to consider the question as to ''whether sitting in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court can force the respondents to act against the law; or issue a writ of mandamus to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the absence of any scheme for such compassionate appointment being prevalent case of the respondents?'' 10. The SC in the case of Life Insurance Corporation vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, 1994 (2) SCC 718 , has held that Courts cannot order appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and that hardship of a candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment dehors the Statutory Provisions. The SC in the case of Life Insurance Corporation vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, 1994 (2) SCC 718 , has held that Courts cannot order appointment on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and that hardship of a candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment dehors the Statutory Provisions. Also, it is settled law that norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the appointment would be the basis of considering claim for compassionate appointment. 11. Such law has been reiterated by the SC in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, 2020 (7) SCC 617 . 12. This Court in Writ Appeal No. 3954 of 2011 (Gajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ Petition No. 54673 of 2005 (Prem Pal vs. State of U.P. and Others) as also in the case of Pankaj Singh (Supra) and Gaurav Sngh Chauhan (Supra) has considered the provisions of Government Order dated 22.1.2000 which was issued withdrawing the scheme of Compassionate Appointment on the ground of financial hardship faced by the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation. The Court has also considered the Resolution passed in the 146th meeting of Board of Directors. The Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any scheme for compassionate appointment no mandamus can be issued to the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation to grant compassionate appointment to the writ petitioners therein. 13. This Court in Special Appeal No. 1737 of 2011 (Jagdish Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) has also held that Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable to the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by this Court directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the absence of any scheme prevalent in the respondents Corporation. 15. The writ petition stands dismissed.