Allahabad High Court
Munna Chauhan vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1600 of 2004
Petitioner :- Munna Chauhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt.
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.K.Singh,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Ram Nath Pandey,Shivendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 29.01.2023 and 17.02.2004 passed by respondent No.1 and 5 contained as Annexure-3&1 to the writ petition with a further prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that father of the petitioner was working as Beldar, who expired while in service completing almost 20 years of service in department of respondent No.5. Mother of the petitioner preferred a representation for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, which has been rejected on the basis of Government Order dated 29.01.2003 passed by respondent No.1. The representation filed by the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is still pending consideration.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.73428 of 2005, the Government Order dated 29.01.2003 and consequential order dated 20.07.2005 have been quashed with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. His next submission is that in the case of Satwant Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2008 SCC Online All 1427, following the said judgment this court has issued direction for consideration of claim of appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is also liable to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
6. Learned ACSC does not dispute the ratio of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he submitted that the impugned government order is just and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. To resolve the controversy, paragraphs 6&7 of the judgment in the case of Satwant Singh (Supra) are being quoted below:
"6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the aforesaid Government order has already been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.73428 of 2005 while placing reliance upon other decisions referred in the aforesaid judgment. For ready reference, the pertinent observation made by this Court in aforesaid case is extracted as under:-
"In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the impugned order dated 29th January, 2003 and the consequential order dated 20th July, 2005 be quashed and the authority be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit, Santosh Kumar Mishra and Anju Mishra (supras), within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No.3, namely, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, U.P. Lucknow. The respondent No.3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No.3. The appointment if any offered to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the reference made under order dated 9th March, 2005 in case of Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra)."
7. Similar view has also been taken in several other cases, one of which is Writ Petition No.5311 (S.S.) of 2004, Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 17.9.2004, therefore, in such a legal position, I am riot inclined to take different view in the matter. Accordingly the impugned order dated 29.1.2004 rejecting the claim of petitioner's compassionate appointment cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed."
9. In view of above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of judgment referred herein above with the same directions.
Order Date :- 20.1.2023
Adarsh K Singh
