Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar Pundir vs State Of U.P. And Others on 17 October, 2011
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59734 of 2011
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pundir
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 01.08.2005.
It is the contention of the petitioner that he moved the application for the compassionate appointment in the year 2001. When the compassionate appointment has not been given, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.29068 of 2003, which has been disposed of by the order dated 08.04.2004 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector on compassionate ground. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been appointed on 01.08.2005.
The contention of the petitioner is that the law relating to the pension, which was available when the petitioner moved the application for compassionate appointment and not the law available on the date of the appointment is applicable. In this regard, the petitioner has filed the representation, which has been rejected by the order dated 05.05.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in giving the compassionate appointment, it may not prejudice the right of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the pension scheme, which was available on the date of filing of the application.
In support of the contention, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.954 of 2009, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and another Vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Srivastva and another, decided on 14.07.2009, wherein while dealing with the case of the compassionate appointment, it has been observed that had her application be considered within a reasonable time, the scheme which came in to force on 06.12.2006 would not have come in her way. The bank on account of its inaction and delay in disposal of the claim of respondent no.1 can not bring about any such situation so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment.
Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp), 414, wherein it has been held that the dispute arose in the year 2000 can not be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the year 2005.
I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The right to get the pension accrued from the date of the appointment and not from the date of the application and, therefore, the law applicable on the date of the appointment will only be apply for the purpose of pension. The right to get the pension does not flow from the date of the application for the compassionate appointment and, therefore, the law available on the date of the application will not be applicable for the purpose of pension. The cases which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not relates to the pension and, therefore, are not applicable to the present case.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.10.2011
R./
