Allahabad High Court
Avon Kumar vs State Of ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6800 of 2021
Petitioner :- Avon Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Food & Civil Supplies & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh "Somvanshi"
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubhra Kumar
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Shubhra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that his father was granted appointment on the post of Chaukidar in Collectorate, Allahabad on 31.05.1988 on regular basis. He died while in service on 24.09.2020 and a death certificate was issued in this regard by the Nagar Nigam.
3. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and his claim has been rejected vide impugned order dated 25.11.2020 on the ground that the respondent department - U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam is in financial crunch, therefore, no appointment on compassionate ground can be made of the petitioner.
4. Assailing the impugned order, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in identical circumstances Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016 was filed before this court and after considering the claim setup by the parties, the writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 05.11.2016 holding that the ground of financial crunch or loss is unsustainable in law and set aside the impugned order for fresh consideration of the claim in accordance with the observation made in the judgment.
5. He further submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
6. He next submitted that in case the order is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration in the light of observation made above, ends of justice would be met.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the department is in loss and due to financial crunch, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment cannot be considered. However, they do not dispute the ratio of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. They submitted that in case the petitioner represents his claim along with copy of the judgment relied upon, fresh consideration shall be made by the respondents in accordance with that. They further submitted that the letter of the Special Secretary has also been endorsed in the impugned order that due to financial crunch in the department, no appointment of any kind shall be made.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. On perusal of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016, it is evident that the impugned order challenged in the said writ petition also took notice of the fact that the claim of the petitioner was rejected for grant of compassionate appointment only on the ground that the department was in financial loss. In view of the above, it is evident that the judgment relied upon squarely covers the claim setup by the petitioner.
10. Once, the controversy in this regard has been set at rest in the aforesaid writ petition that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be refused on the ground of financial crunch and in view of the fact that learned counsel for the parties have agreed for disposal of the writ petition at this stage, therefore, the impugned order (annexure-1) dated 25.11.2020 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
11. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 05.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016. Further, the authorities concerned are directed to pass afresh order in the light of the observation made in the order dated 05.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016 within a period of four months from the date copy of this order is served to the respondent No.2. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to provide the copy of the judgment and order dated 05.11.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7251 (S/S) of 2016 and judgment along with copy of this order.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
Adarsh K Singh
