Allahabad High Court
Ranjesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. ... on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8211 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ranjesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Horticulture, Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1.Heard Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the opposite parties to consider and appoint the petitioner on a suitable post of Assistant Accountant according to his qualifications.
3. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner, who was working on the post of 'Mali' in Horticulture and Food Processing Department, died on 16.1.2014 while in service. The petitioner being his son and included in the definition of 'family' as provided for under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, made application on 17.2.2014 for appointment on compassionate grounds. By means of order dated 17.2.2014 the Superintendent, Rajkiya Horticulture, Alambagh, Lucknow appointed the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk and the petitioner joined on the said post and is working on the said post since February, 2014.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is B.Com. and Diploma in Computer Application and consequently he is eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant and accordingly he moved application to the opposite parties for appointing him on the post of Assistant Accountant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various letters by which his application for appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant has been forwarded by the Joint Director (Horticulture) to the Superintendent, Rajkiya Horticulture, Lucknow but no orders have been passed in this regard and consequently has approached this Court seeking a direction to be appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already joined in 2014 and is working on the post of Junior Clerk for the last 8 years and even with regard to the claim made by the petitioner the definition of 'suitable post' as occurring in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 has been clarified by Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Premlata passed in Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 on 05.10.2021 which has been further followed in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2022 (decided on 2.8.2022). It is stated that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Mali which is a class IV post and consequently there is no infirmity in appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk. It is further stated that the petitioner is working for the last 8 years and hence his claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant is belated and in any view of the matter legally he cannot be appointed on the said post of Assistant Accountant and submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is noticed that after death of his father the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk by means of appointment letter dated 17.2.2014. The appointment was in consonance with the Rules of 1974 and in this regard it is relevant to quote the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Premlata passed in Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 on 05.10.2021, where the definition of 'suitable post' under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 has been amplified which is as follows:-
"...'Suitable post' has to be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered, considering the post held by the deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee, otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the appointment on compassionate ground and the regular appointment. In a given case it may happen that the dependent of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of ClassII or ClassI post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner. As observed above, appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet."
7. The aforesaid judgment was duly considered by Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2022 (decided on 2.8.2022) and the following was observed:-
"9. This is a case where the father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper. Undoubtedly, the appellant is qualified (according to him) and in the said sense is suitable for being appointed as a Gram Panchayat Officer. The death of the employee in this case took place not too far away, namely, it took place on 23.11.2016. Therefore, this is not a case where the link between the date of the death and the time for consideration of the matter by this Court has snapped. We must not be oblivious to the fact that the deceased employee was a Sweeper.
10. At the same time, as far as the question relating to the entitlement as it were of the appellant to be considered to the post of Gram Panchayat Officer is concerned, it is without doubt a post borne in Class-III. The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne in Class-IV post. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata (supra). In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification beld by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment".
11. It is clear that the Annexure P-1 does not represent statutory Rules. We do not think we should be persuaded to take a different view as things stand. We cannot eclipse the dimension that the whole purport of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to reach immediate relief to the bereaved family. In such circumstances, the meaning placed on the words "suitable employment" bearing in mind the post held by the deceased employee cannot be said to be an unreasonable or incorrect view."
8. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the appointment of the petitioner was in consonance with the Rules of 1974 and further this Court does not find that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant. It is necessary to mention that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to prevent a family from falling into destitution after the death of the sole bread earner member of the family. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clarified that this is not a source of recruitment but in a given circumstance it is only to prevent the family from falling into destitution and accordingly the petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
