Udgeet Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26777 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63127-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 468 of 2023
 
Appellant :- Udgeet Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Secondary Education) Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Krishna Kumar Singh,Shashwat Bajpai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Badrish Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Shri Pratush Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. The intra-Court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has assailed the judgment/order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.26119 of 2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed for lack of merit.

3. It appears that the father of the appellant feeling aggrieved against non payment of salary on a class IV post had previously instituted writ petition No.2471 (S/S) of 1999 wherein an interim orders were passed on 25.05.1999 and thereafter on 30.10.2002 for payment of salary.

4. The subject matter of the dispute in the above-mentioned writ petition was, as to the legitimacy of the appointment for which, approval was not granted by the competent authority. It was during pendency of the above-mentioned writ petition that, appellant's father died and the writ petition was finally decided on 05.02.2019 limiting the relief only to the extent of the interim orders benefit whereof was granted to the petitioner and his legal successor. The appellant appears to have agitated the cause of compassionate appointment nearly about ten years after the death of his father.

5. The writ Court while considering the claim has observed that the exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India for an appointment made underU.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, has a purpose to tide over the financial conditions of the family and the delay for such a cause is fatal.

6. The claim instituted after ten years from the date of death of the appellant's father in the light of reasoning assigned by the writ Court, does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.

7. The special appeal being bereft of any merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

8. We are, however, informed that the family pension has been extended to the wife of the deceased, which relief shall remain intact and the order passed by this Court in the present special appeal in no manner shall affect the same.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

Order Date :- 3.10.2023

Shubhankar