Allahabad High Court
Niranjan Passwaan Alias Niranjan ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5961 of 2022
Petitioner :- Niranjan Passwaan Alias Niranjan Paaswan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs, Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1.Heard Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays that he may be permitted to delete opposite party No.5. Learned Standing counsel does not object to the same. Accordingly, the oral prayer of the petitioner is allowed. He is permitted to delete opposite party No.5 during the course of day.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed under Dying in Harness Rules on the post of Constable
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar person namely, Sanjeev Dubey was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Sub Inspector. He has vehemently submitted that father of Sanjeev Dubey also died in harness while working on the post of Constable, as such, in similar circumstances the petitioner though was entitled for being appointed on the post of Sub Inspector from the date of his initial appointment but the opposite parties have committed an error in granting him appointment on the post of Constable and accordingly prayer has been made for extending the same benefit to the petitioner and a suitable direction may be issued to the opposite parties to consider and decide his representation in this regard in light of the benefit granted to said Sanjeev Dubey.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition stating that law in this regard is clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Premlata decided in Civil Appeal No.6003 of 2021 in the following terms:-
"11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 and in observing and holding that the 'suitable post' under Rule 5 of the Dying In Harness Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is to be offered considering the educational qualification of the dependent. As observed hereinabove such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground..."
6. This judgment has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on August 02, 2022 in Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2022 wherein in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 it has been held as under:-
"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 held 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."
7. It has now been decided that suitable post as provided in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 would be related to the post held by the deceased employee rather than the qualification of the candidates seeking such appointment. Considering that father of the petitioner was a Constable the petitioner cannot be granted compassionate appointment on the higher post of sub Inspector in light of the aforesaid judgment and consequently no such relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner also does not have vested right to be appointed on any particular post and considering the fact that the petitioner duly accepted his appointment on the post of Constable and joined as such without demur, he cannot now turn around and claim that his appointment was infirm and he should have been appointed on the post of Sub Inspector.
8. It is also made clear that in case some employee i.e. Sanjeev Dubey was given appointment on the post of Sub Inspector de horse the rules, the petitioner cannot claim benefit and parity of the same and Article 14 of the Constitution will not come into play to seek equality in terms of an order which is contrary to rules.
9. In light of the above, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.9.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
