Poonam Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11880 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5444 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Poonam Srivastava
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Ayush Chaudhary,Maria Fatima,Mohd. Kausar Jah
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra and Sri Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has raised two grievances in the present case, the first grievances relates to the fact that after death of husband of the petitioner in April, 2021, she though has received other service benefits relating to her deceased husband but amount of G.P.F. and one month's salary has not been given to her despite repeated representations.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that her grievances shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

4. Learned Standing counsel has no objection in case such a direction is issued to the respondent No. 4.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to move a representation with regard to release of G.P.F. and one month's salary of her deceased husband before respondent No. 4 within ten days from today and in case such a representaiton is moved, respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and decide the same within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the second grievance of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer in 1988 and posted on in Community Health Centre, Risia, Bahraich, U.P., unfortunately in the month of April, 2021 he died on 29.04.2021 due to Covid -19 virus It is on account of untimely demise of husband of the petitioner who was the sole bread earner of the family and severe financial crisis over took the family due to which the petitioner was constrained to move an application before the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

7. It has been submitted that the petitioner is highly qualified lady having degree of master of Arts (Hindi) and master of Arts (Sociology) and hence possesses all the requisite educational qualifications for appointment on class-III post and accordingly made an application for appointment.

8. At the time of consideration of her candidature for appointment, various communications were made between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and petitioner submitted all the requisite documents as required.

9. The grievances of the petitioner raised in the present case with regard to order dated 19.01.2022 passed by Director, Ayurvedic, Uttar Pradesh thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on class-III on compassionate ground but in the same order, it has been stated that they are willing to appoint her on Class-IV post, if she agree.

10. In support of the said reasons, in the said order, it has also been stated that with regard to Class-III post, there are 227 regular posts and 280 supernumerary posts have been created and total 507 persons are working in Class-III posts. It has further been stated that according to Government Order dated 18.05.2017 unless more posts are sanctioned, the department has been restrained from making any further appointment on compassionate ground on Class-III posts. The aforesaid order has been assailed by learned counsel for petitioner on various grounds.

11. He has submitted that, the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.08.2022 as well as in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Prem Lata decided on 05.10.2021, it is beyond doubt that the post to be offered to the petitioner would commensurate to the post her deceased husband was occupying which was a Medical Officer (Class-II post). It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that petitioner is fully entitled to be appointed on Class III post but as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and also as per the impugned order, the respondents are not averse to appointing the petitioner on a Class-III post but only reason her case for compassionate appointment has been rejected is lack of available post of Class III on which the petitioner can be appointed.

12. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed overlooking the government order dated 02.11.2021. He has submitted that in Covid -19 pandemic there were large number of death of government servants which surge led to a catastrophic problems where number of government employees having died leaving their family in a destitute conditions. The said government order provids that in case requisite posts are not available in one department or about 10% of the post have been filled up on compassionate ground then appointment can be considered in other departments and the department of Personnel, Government of U.P. shall create a database and such vacancies on which a person would be liable to be considered for appointment in other departments.

13. It has further been submitted that the Personnel Department shall keep a record of vacancies in various departments and in such a situation the legal heirs of the deceased government servant would be liable to be appointed in any other government department.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

15. This Court has considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner as well as the impugned order dated 19.01.2022. It is noticed that the petitioner is a highly qualified lady having degree of master of Arts (Hindi) and master of Arts (Sociology) and possesses all the requisite educational qualifications to be appointed on Class-III post. According to the impugned order, it is stated that no post in the Ayurvedic Services is available and all the posts has filled up and reliance has been placed on Government Order dated 18.05.2017 for denying the appointment to the petitioner on class-III post only because of non-availability of vacancy. The impugned order it seems has not been taken into account the Government Order dated 02.11.2021 where it has specifically provided in case vacancies are available in other government departments then the candidatures of such family member of the deceased government servant shall be considered for appointment in any other department in as such vacancy are available.

16. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case her case is reconsidered by the competent authority after receiving relevant inputs from Personnel Departments. It has further been stated that in case vacancies are available in other departments, the petitioner should be considered appointment in the said department on Class-III post and hence made a prayer that respondent No. 4 may be directed to re-visit the order dated 19.01.2022.

17. Learned Standing counsel does not object in case a direction is given for reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to re-consider the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the provision contained in Government Order dated 02.11.2021. The petitioner is at liberty to move a representation before respondent No. 4 within ten days from today including all the relevant government orders and in case such a representation is moved, respondent No. 4 shall proceed to consider and decide the same within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order.

19. It is further noticed that respondent No. 4 shall not be bound by the order dated 19.01.2022 and it shall not come in the way of the petitioner being offered an appointment on compassionate grounds if she fulfills all the qualifications and conditions as prescribed in Government Order dated 02.11.2021.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 31.8.2022

Ravi/