Allahabad High Court
Karan Addiwal vs State Of U P And 5 Others on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1941 of 2023
Petitioner :- Karan Addiwal
Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Jai Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd Yaseen, Advocate holding brief of Sri learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
Case was heard on 02.02.2023 and Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd Yaseen, Advocate holding brief of Sri learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submitted that father of petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 1.6.1991 and ultimately during the course of service, he died on 18.2.2019. Upon which, petitioner has submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 3.7.2019 on the ground that his father was given appointment pursuant to the resignation submitted by his grandfather. As per impugned order, after resignation of any employee, there is no provision for granting appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, appointment of father of petitioner was bad in law and no appointment can be given to petitioner on compassionate ground after death of his father.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that undisputedly after appointment, father of petitioner was continued in service till death i.e. 18.2.2019 and further no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against him, therefore, after death of his father, respondents cannot deny the appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. He further submitted that petitioner has represented before the Higher Authority and ultimately, vide letter dated 27.2.2022 respondent no.4 has sought guidelines from the respondent no.2, but till date, no final decision shall be taken.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 is granted 10 days time to seek instruction about the matter.
Put up this case as fresh on 14.2.2023."
On 14.02.2023, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh has produced instruction and thereafter, Court has passed the following order:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 2.2.2023, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 has produced the instruction dated 13.2.2023, which is taken on record.
Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 could not deny the facts so observed by this Court in its order dated 2.2.2023.
He prays for and is granted 10 days time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three days thereafter. In case instruction is not provided on the next date, Court would have no option, but to pass order for personal appearance of respondent nos. 4.
Put up this case as fresh on 28.2.2023."
Pursuant to the order dated 14.02.2023, Sri Jai Bahadur Singh has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner does not prefer to file rejoinder affidavit as there is no denial of facts mentioned in writ petition as well as recorded in the order of this Court dated 02.02.2023.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted that once, it is undisputed that father of petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground after resignation of his grand-father and he was permitted to continue in service till his death i.e. 18.02.2019. No departmental proceeding has ever been initiated against father of petitioner, therefore, after his death, application of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that appointment of his father was bad and de hors the rules. He next submitted that as on date, father of petitioner is not alive, therefore, no departmental proceeding can be initiated against him. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through Lrs. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022) decided on 28.09.2022.
Learned counsel for respondents though opposed, but could not dispute the factual as well as legal submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.
Facts of the case are undisputed. Appointment of father of petitioner cannot be treated invalid or contrary to the rules after his death coupled with this fact that against his appointment, he was never charge sheeted. Therefore, appointment of father of petitioner shall be treated valid and application of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected on the ground that appointment of his father was bad and contrary to the rules.
Law is very well settled that against a dead person, no inquiry proceeding can be initiated as held by the Apex Court in the matter of R.K.S. Rathore (Supra) and the said judgment is also followed by this Court in Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022. Relevant paragraph of R.K.S. Rathore (Supra) is quoted below:-
"8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal will have the same consequences as the appeal being allowed.
9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs."
Therefore, under such facts of the case as well as law laid down by the Courts, impugned order dated 03.07.2019 is bad and hereby quashed.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Matter is remitted back to respondent-authorities to pass fresh order in accordance with rules, maximum within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that application of petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that appointment of father of petitioner was bad and contrary to the rules.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023/Sartaj
