Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 1 August, 2012
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4061 of 2012
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue & 2 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Suresh Kumar Upadhyay
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th November, 2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974( In short Dying in Harness Rules) has been rejected.
The petitioner's father died while in service on 7.1. 2007. The petitioner claiming his regularization over and above to his junior earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.11615 of 1990. This Court by means of an order dated 7.1.1996 issued directions to the Collector, Sultanpur to look into the mater and take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the order of this Court the Collector , Sultanpur passed an order on 3.1.2001 whereby he classified the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin and observed that since his recovery was below to the prescribed standard, he was not entitled even to be engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin. Aggrieved petitioner challenged the said order through the W.P.No. 2003(SS) of 2001 which is still pending consideration. Meanwhile, the petitioner died on 7.1.2007. The petitioner being son of the deceased moved an application for substitution in the said writ petition in which he has been substituted in place of the petitioner.
In the meantime, the controversy regarding authenticity of the select list in which the petitioner has been placed at serial no. 26 has been adjudicated upon by this Court by means of an order dated 19.8.2006, passed in W.P.No. 4031(SS) of 2001 and other connected writ petitions. The said select list has been authenticated as select list of regularly selected Collection Amin. I am informed that the order, passed by this Court in the said writ petition has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and Special Leave Petition filed by the State before the Supreme Court against the order of Division Bench has also been dismissed.
The petitioner being at serial no.26 in the select list also claimed benefit of the said list and filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.6626(SS) of 2011. This court by means of an order dated 26.9.2011 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the opposite party no. 3 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation.
The authority concerned has considered the petitioner's representation and has rejected the same by means of order impugned.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the observations made in the order impugned the Sub Divisional Officer still treated the petitioner's father as a Seasonal Collection Amin on the date of his death and therefore has denied to give any benefit of regularization.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the select list in which the petitioner is placed at serial no. 26 has already been adjudicated upon, there was no occasion for the Sub Divisional Officer concerned to negate the same. Accordingly it is stated that the order impugned is unsustainable.
Upon perusal of the order, I find that petitioner's case for compassionate appointment after death of his father has been rejected on the same very premise as the claim of the petitioner's father for regularization had been rejected by the Collector, Sultanpur on 3.1.2001 whereas much water has flown thereafter and now after the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pratap Narayan Pandey, i.e, W.P.No. 4031(SS) of 2001 the controversy regarding select list is no res integra. Therefore, I am of the view that the authority concerned has misunderstood the petitioner's claim. The select list of the Collection Amin prepared by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance &Revenue), Sultanpur in 1986 is a select list of regular Collection Amin in which petitioner's father is placed at serial no. 26 and he died as such. Therefore, I am of the view that under the Dying In Harness Rule,1974 the petitioner being dependent of his father ((deceased) is entitled to get compassionate appointment.
Under the circumstances order impugned is hereby quashed. Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. It is further observed that the respondents shall not enter into controversy further in regard to the status of the petitioner's father in service on the date of his death.
Order Date :- 1.8.2012
Tripathi
