Allahabad High Court
Farookh Sheikh vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Gram Vikas ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3191 of 2018
Petitioner :- Farookh Sheikh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Gram Vikas Civil Sectt.Lucknow & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramesh Kumar Jaiswal,Farooqahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Farooqahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for respondent - State.
2. Father of the petitioner was working on the post of Driver in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Kheri. He died while on service on 28.02.2014 leaving behind three legal heirs; the petitioner, a married daughter and Smt. Zameela Beghum - widow of the deceased.
3. An application was moved on 26.03.2014 for consideration of claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. When no order as passed, Writ Petition No.3208 (S/S) of 2014 was filed before this Court, which was finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cause of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order.
4. In compliance of the order, an order was passed on 21.02.2017, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Rules of 1974 is not applicable in DRDA, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment under Rules of 1974. Against the order rejecting claim of the petitioner on 21.02.2017, Writ Petition No.8595 (S/S) of 2017 was filed before this Court, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2017 by setting aside the order dated 21.02.2017 and direction was again issued for consideration of claim of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
5. The respondents have again rejected the claim of the petitioner on 27.05.2017, which was assailed in Writ Petition No.18239 (S/S) of 2017, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2017 setting aside the impugned order with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner.
6. Now, again the order dated 07.12.2017 has been passed, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy that whether the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are applicable to the DRDA or not was subject matter of consideration in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others; Service Single No.14930 of 2017, wherein the full bench of this Court has decided the issue vide judgment and order dated 05.05.2021.
8. In the light of aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that now the controversy has set at rest and the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Rules of 1974 is not applicable to DRDA is not available to the respondents.
9. His next submission is that in view of decision rendered in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra (Supra), the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned ACSC does not dispute the ratio of the judgment decided by full bench of this Court and submitted that in case direction is issued to respondents for reconsideration of claim of the petitioner in the light of full bench judgment, ends of justice would be met.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. To resolve the controversy, relevant portion of judgment of full bench is being quoted below:
"60. A perusal of the order dated 10.06.2013 filed along with the written submissions clearly indicates that it is not in the nature of a Government Order and has merely rejected the representation of one Smt. Meera Awasthi, wife of late Vijay Kant Awasthi for compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules. The rejection of her claim is merely on the ground that the 1974 Rules are inapplicable upon the employees of the DRDA. The same cannot be termed to be a Government Order and is merely in the nature of decision upon a representation pertaining to one Smt. Meera Awasthi and was, therefore, not required to be challenged by the present petitioner. Even otherwise, the ground of rejection indicated in the order dated 10.06.2013 has already been considered herein above.
61. In view of the aforesaid facts that undisputedly, the State Government has the power to issue orders such as the Government Order dated 17.03.1994 in order to fill in the void pertaining to service conditions of employees of Government Order and also in view of paragraph 2(9) of the Government Order, it is clear that the Rules of 1974 would be applicable upon the employees of the DRDA.
Consideration of Question No.2 :- (ii) Whether the judgment of Division Bench in State of U.P. vs. Ajeet Kumar Shahi, Special Appeal No.714 of 2015, requires reconsideration in light of the Government Orders dated 17.3.1994 and 18.7.2016?
62. In view of the discussions made herein above, particularly with regard to the importance and applicability of Government Orders dated 17.03.1994 and 18.07.2016, and the same having escaped attention of the Division Bench in the case of Ajeet Kumar Shahi (Supra), it is clear that the aforesaid case required reconsideration.
63. Consequently, the questions referred to this Bench are answered as follows:-
Question No.1 : In view of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.03.1994, particularly clause 2(9), the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 would be applicable upon employees of the District Rural Development Agency:
Question No.2 : The judgment of Division Bench in Ajeet Kumar Shahi (Supra) having been passed in ignorance of Government Order dated 17.03.1994 is held not to be a good law and is, therefore, overruled.
64. The reference is answered accordingly.
65. Registry is directed to place the matter before the appropriate court dealing with the matter."
13. In view of observation made by the full bench of this Court, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
15. The impugned order dated 07.12.2017 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner and to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order in the light of observation made in the case of Km. Kalyani Mehrotra (Supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021
Adarsh K Singh
