State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... vs Smt. Sarla Devi S/S 4968/2006
2022 Latest Caselaw 20991 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 872 of 2006
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Iffigation And 3 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Sarla Devi S/S 4968/2006 
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Srivastava,Smt. Seema Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

C.M. Application No.42227 of 2006 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

List has been revised.

Case called out.

No one is present to represent the respondent.

Heard learned State counsel representing the appellant- State authorities.

Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we find that delay has appropriately been explained.

Accordingly, application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

Order in Appeal

Under challenge in this special appeal is the judgment and order dated 26.07.2006 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby Writ Petition No.4968 (S/S) of 2006 filed by the respondent- petitioner has been allowed and the order under challenge therein, dated 26.10.1998 has been quashed.

Learned Single Judge while passing the said order dated 26.07.2006 has directed the appellants to consider her case for compassionate appointment on a suitable post.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants- State authorities is that learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal herein has relied upon the judgment dated 25.07.2005 in the case of Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.51469 of 2005) rendered by learned Single Judge, however Vijay Kumar Yadav (supra) did not notice the judgement dated 14.07.2000 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Smt. Phoola Devi (Special Appeal No.117 of 2000).

The submission is that the judgment in the case of Smt. Phoola Devi (supra) was in a fact situation, where a person concerned was claiming compassionate appointment in place of her husband who was also a part time Tubewell operator, however, her claim was rejected.

When we examine the order under appeal before us, dated 26.07.2006, what we find is that the same is based on Vijay Kumar Yadav (supra), which clearly runs contrary to the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Phoola Devi (supra).

In view of the above, we are not in agreement with the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 26.07.2006, which is under appeal before us.

The special appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order dated 26.07.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4968 (S/S) 2006 is hereby set aside.

There will be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

Rahul