Allahabad High Court
Rahul Singh Yadav vs Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ... on 18 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239051-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 749 of 2023
Appellant :- Rahul Singh Yadav
Respondent :- Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Puneet Bhadauria,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan,Adarsh Bhushan
Connected with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 693 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Durga Devi
Respondent :- Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Puneet Bhadauria,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Archit Mandhyan,Adarsh Bhushan
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Delay in filing of the appeal, being Special Appeal Defective No.693 of 2023, has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Mandi Parishad.
3. Special Appeal No.749 of 2023 filed by appellant Rahul Singh Yadav is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 6.7.2023, passed in Writ Petition No.7951 of 2023, as well as Special Appeal Defective No.693 of 2023 filed by appellant Smt. Durga Devi is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19.7.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.5398 of 2013.
4. Appellant Rahul Singh Yadav is the son of the deceased employee, namely Rajesh Kumar, who was employed in Mandi Parishad and died in harness on 7.4.2012. Other appellant Smt. Durga Devi is the stepmother of appellant Rahul Singh Yadav. Claim for compassionate appointment was instituted by the present appellant Rahul Singh Yadav, as also his stepmother Smt. Durga Devi. Both the claims were considered pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.4559 of 2012, instituted by the petitioner's stepmother Smt. Durga Devi. The concerned authority of the Mandi Parishad considered the respective claim of both the claimants and came to the conclusion that since there was no consensus arrived at between the parties, with regard to the person whose claim could be considered, as such application of both set of claimants was rejected. This order dated 18.12.2012 was challenged by petitioner's stepmother in Writ Petition No.5398 of 2013, wherein the present appellant was a respondent. This writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge on 19.7.2021, noticing the fact that almost 10 years have expired since the death of the deceased employee and the petitioner had not been able to demonstrate that financial distress had continued to subsist. It further appears that after the order was passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.5398 of 2013, better sense prevailed upon the parties and a consensus was arrived at between both the set of claimants and it was agreed that the compassionate appointment would be offered to present appellant Rahul Singh Yadav. A fresh writ petition came to be filed by the appellant being Writ Petition No.7951 of 2023, wherein it was asserted in para 15 that the stepmother Smt. Durga Devi had agreed to the appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground and had also submitted an affidavit. The other claimants of the deceased employee also submitted similar affidavits. Since the Mandi Parishad had not adverted to such claim of petitioner Rahul Singh Yadav, as such he had to approach this Court once again by filing Writ Petition No.7951 of 2023. It is this petition of the appellant, which has been rejected by learned Single Judge, essentially relying upon the order passed previously by this Court in the writ petition filed by appellant's stepmother.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the only reason for previous rejection of the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment was the fact that the claimants of the deceased employee had failed to arrive at a consensus on the issue as to who would be offered compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has now been resolved by the parties. It is also pointed out that the writ petition filed by stepmother, being Writ Petition No.5398 of 2013, remained pending before this Court, and was ultimately decided in the year 2021. The claim of the petitioner has been instituted soon thereafter. It is submitted that case of the petitioner Rahul Singh Yadav ought to have been directed to be examined in accordance with the applicable rules. Submission is that rejection of appellant's claim by learned Single Judge, therefore, requires consideration. It is contended that the claim for compassionate appointment was lodged soonafter the death of the employee concerned, and therefore, there was no delay in instituting the claim for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that learned Singh Judge, therefore, has erred in non-suiting the appellant on the ground of delay. It is also submitted that merely because the writ petition of 2013 remained pending would not lead to an inference that the claim of the appellant was itself belated. Learned Single Judge thereafter fell in error in non-suiting appellant Smt. Durga Devi on account of delay.
6. We have also perused the records, from which it transpires that no counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition and it was rejected summarily at the stage of hearing of the fresh petition itself.
7. In the facts of the case, it is apparent that both the appellants have been continuously litigating over their rights to claim compassionate appointment. It cannot be said that the appellants were sleeping over the rights. Claim of Smt. Durga Devi could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. The petition was filed in 2013 and the mere fact that petition was decided in 2021, it would not mean that her claim was belated. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner Rahul Singh Yadav is liable to be considered on merits, in accordance with the applicable rules, once the claimants have allegedly agreed upon the fact that appellant Rahul Singh Yadav be granted compassionate appointment.
8. In that view of the matter, we allow the present appeals and set aside the judgment and orders dated 6.7.2023 and 19.7.2021, passed by learned Single Judge. The matter is remitted to the Mandi Parishad with a direction to accord consideration to claim of appellant Rahul Singh Yadav for compassionate appointment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the stepmother Smt. Durga Devi. The fresh consideration would be made in terms of the above observations, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with the applicable rules governing the grant of compassionate appointment.
Order Date :- 18.12.2023
Anil
