Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 610 (ALL)

Pradip Pal v. State of U. P.

2025-04-09

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Ajay Bhanot, J.) I. Introduction: 1. By the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner/Chairman, Regional Cane Service Authority, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been declined. 2. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 invalidates the claim of the petitioner on the footing that the service records available with the department do not disclose the date on which the petitioner's deceased-father was made permanent. The impugned order also discloses that the petitioner's father was initially appointed as a server on 09.03.1983. Thereafter, he worked as peon but the date of joining as permanent employee is not disclosed in the service book or records. II. Submissions from the Bar: 3. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: (i). The petitioner's father was a permanent employee in the respondent-corporation. (ii). The petitioner or his father is not responsible for the discrepancies in the service records being maintained by the respondent-corporation. (iii). The petitioner's father was always treated as a permanent employee. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 has been passed only to defeat the right of the petitioner to compassionate grounds appointment. 4. Shri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for the respondents No.5 have made the following submissions: (i). The petitioner's father is not depicted as the permanent employee in the service book being maintained by the respondent-corporation. (ii). The petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as compassionate ground appointment. III. Discussions and Findings: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Various attributes of permanent appointment of the petitioner's father are prima facie disclosed from the facts of this case. The petitioner's father continued in service for almost 29 years without break. A service book was created in the name of his father. The said service book is maintained by the respondents only for permanent employees. The petitioner's family was paid GPF, gratuity, and leave encashment. Again all these service benefits are admissible to permanent employees alone. 7. Entries in the service book and service records are made by the employer. The said documents remain in the exclusively custody of the employer. It is the duty of the employer maintain and update the service records of employees. Again all these service benefits are admissible to permanent employees alone. 7. Entries in the service book and service records are made by the employer. The said documents remain in the exclusively custody of the employer. It is the duty of the employer maintain and update the service records of employees. Discrepancies or deficiencies in the service book or records are liable to be enquired into before penalizing or faulting an employee. In absence of such enquiry the said deficiencies in the service records alone cannot be made the basis of disputing the nature of appointment of the petitioner's deceased-father without proper enquiry. 8. All relevant attributes of a permanent appointment are also liable to be examined to determine the nature of the appointment of the petitioner's father. 9. The respondents-authorities while considering the claim of the petitioner neglected to evaluate the aforesaid aspects which are germane to the controversy. Non application of mind to the aforesaid relevant considerations vitiates the impugned order dated 17.05.2023. IV. Conclusions and Directions: 10. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 is unsustainable in law. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 11. The matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities with the following directions: I). The application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be decided by the respondents-authorities as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. II). While taking the decision on the appointment of the petitioner, the nature of the appointment of his deceased- father shall be determined in light of the observations made above. III). The financial condition of the petitioner's family at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, and dependancy on the deceased and all other relevant facts as per law are liable to be determined by the authority. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.