Allahabad High Court
Himanshu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137294
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9496 of 2023
Petitioner :- Himanshu Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Shubham Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondent.
The petitioner is claiming for compassionate appointment on account of his father late Chandra Mohan Singh Yadav having died in harness in the year 2009 when he was just five years. His mother moved an application at that point of time that her eldest son Himanshu Yadav, namely, the petitioner should be offered appointment after he completed education and became major. This application dated 8th October, 2009 came to be responded by the Commandant 35th Battalion PAC, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow on 8th April, 2015 that an application was necessarily required to be moved within five years of the date of death and if the vacancies were available then such candidate would be considered for compassionate appointment. Beyond the period of five years the matter can only be considered after the State Government approves it as per the relevant Government orders and rules.
It was stated therein that in the event any such application is moved beyond the period of five years then the mother of the petitioner would be solely responsible.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner had attained majority in the year 2021 and, accordingly, he moved an application on 2nd March, 2023 seeking compassionate appointment by sending the same vide registered post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon application so moved by the petitioner, no decision has been taken by the authority concerned.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that in view of the order passed earlier by the Commandant, 35th Battalion, PAC Lucknow dated 8th April, 2015, it was necessary for the petitioner to have obtained approval of the State Government as more than five years had expired.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner was merely five year old child at the time of death of his father, I find that the application was genuinely moved by the mother to offer appointment to her son after he attained majority. Admittedly, the petitioner attained majority in the year 2021 as his date of birth is recorded in the High School certificate to be 18th December, 2003.
In the circumstances, therefore, after having attained majority, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been late in moving necessary application for appointment and bar of five years has now come into play.
In the circumstances, therefore, I hereby direct the respondent No.- 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law taking the application to be well within time and also in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others passed in Service Single No.- 6439 of 2021 decided on 2nd December, 2021.
Appropriate decision shall be taken by the authority concerned within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
I may further observe that while taking decision the authority has to keep in mind that the purpose of offering compassionate appointment will get defeated if the application seeking compassionate appointment is rejected for technical reasons and in the event respondent decides that petitioner is entitled to be offered compassionate appointment they shall be offering the same against the available vacancy within a further period of one month.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023
Atmesh
