Allahabad High Court
Gopi Chand vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 5 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72852
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10130 of 2024
Petitioner :- Gopi Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Pratap Singh,Abhishek Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by Chief Medical Superintendent, Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya whereby respondent No. 3 has declined to decide the suitability of either the petitioner or wife of the deceased government servant with regard to grant of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974.
4. The brief facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner, late Ram Phal was working on the post of Sweeper at Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya and died during his services on 17.12.2022 leaving behind petitioner and Chandrawati (Wife of the deceased) and one other son Krishna Kumar as his legal heirs. The petitioner is the son of the first wife of the deceased government servant who had predeceased Ram Phal and thereafter he had married Chandrawati/Respondent No. 4 and from the said wedlock, he had three issues, namely, Krishna Kumar (respondent No. 5), Ansul Kumar (Minor) and Janki.
5. On the death of the father of the petitioner, he had moved an application on 14.07.2023 before the Chief Medical Superintendent, Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya for being granted appointment on compassionate grounds and on the other hand Krishna Kumar/respondent No. 5 had also moved an application for being granted compassionate appointment.
6. Considering the contesting claims of the petitioner and respondent No. 5, both seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the Chief Medical Superintendent, Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya kept the matter pending and did not take any decision and accordingly petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 1778 of 2024 which was disposed of by this Court on 06.05.2024 directing the Chief Medical Superintendent to take a decision within a period of three months with regard to contenting claims for appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. Similarly, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have also moved a writ petition being Writ A No. 1778 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of order dated 06.03.2024 with a similar direction which was issued to Director (Administration) Medical & health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow to take a decision within six weeks.
8. By means of the impugned order, the Chief Medical Superintendent, Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya has disposed of the rival claims for compassionate appointment, taking into account both the judgments of this Court wherein he was directed to decide the rival claimants in light of the Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. He has rejected both the applications only on the ground that neither of the parties could submit 'No Objection Certificate' from all the other claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order stating that the order is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974.
10. It has been submitted that respondent No. 3 was under a mandate to give reasons and pass necessary orders considering the rival contentions of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and should have granted appointment to the person who was more suitable for being granted compassionate appointment. He submits that by not taking a decision, respondent No. 3 has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and accordingly the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.
11. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has not disputed the facts and has supported the impugned order.
12. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that according to Rule 7 of Rules of 1974, the procedure has been clearly provided where there are more than one member of the family seeking compassionate appointment, provision has been made in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 to decide such matters taking into account the conditions laid down thereunder. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1974 is quoted herein below:-
"7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment. - If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof."
13. In exercising his power under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974, the authority has to adjudicate about suitability of the person for giving employment and while taking such a decision he has to take into account overall interest of the welfare of the entire family particularly the widow and the minor members thereof. The entire factual aspect of the matter was before respondent No. 3 and even two separate orders of this Court had required him to take a decision in light of the provision of Rule 7 of Rules of 1974. Both the applications have been rejected holding that 'No Objection certificate' was not submitted from all the family members. Even in a situation where 'No Objection Certificate' is not provided by all the family members, respondent No. 3 should have passed an order taking guidance from the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 specially he had to take into account overall interest of the welfare of the family particularity the widow and minor members thereof.
14. Therefore, once the rule provides the manner of taking decision it was incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to pass reasoned and speaking orders taking into account the relevant considerations but he has failed to decide the same and accordingly this Court is of the view that he has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him.
15. A senior person like the Chief Medical Superintendent is under a mandate not only to comply with the judgments of this Court but also to follow the rules and it is not appreciated despite two judicial rendition directing him to decide the matter in terms of Rule 7 of Rules of Rules of 1974, he has failed to exercise he jurisdiction vested in him. Accordingly the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 being illegal and arbitrary and clearly contrary to the provisions of Rule 7 of Rules of 1974 which is accordingly set aside.
16. The matter is remitted to Chief Medical Superintendent, Shri Ram Hospital, Ayodhya to decide the matter afresh strictly in light of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of Rules of 1974, after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the rival claimants.
17. Let the said decision be taken within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
18. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before respondent No. 3 for its expeditious disposal.
19. In light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 5.11.2024
Ravi/
