Allahabad High Court
Raju Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78058
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9275 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raju Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Roshan Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to order dated 22.11.2023, passed by respondent no. 3 thereby holding that petitioner's case for grant of compassionate appointment can be considered only after conclusion of criminal trial pending against him.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of petitioner was working in the office of Executive Engineer (Constructions Division - II), PWD, Pratapgarh and subsequently his services were regularised on 21.02.2011 on the post of Chaukidar and died on 16.01.2023. On death of father of petitioner Raj Pati, petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 23.01.2023 before respondent no. 3.
4. It is during the period when application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was pending that a complaint was received in the office of respondent no. 3 with regard to pendency of criminal case against petitioner being Case Crime No. 0237 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is facing trial.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents have sought legal opinion from the office of Government Advocate, Pratapgarh who have opinion in favor of the petitioner, but thereafter, when a legal opinion was sought from the office of learned Standing Counsel of the High Court, an adverse opinion was given, stating that the aspect of compassionate appointment cannot be considered during pendency of criminal trial.
6. It is in the aforesaid facts that the application of petitioner was not decided by the respondents. Aggrieved by the non decision on his application, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ - A No. 6991 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court with direction to the respondents to decide case of the petitioner within six weeks.
7. It is in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 21.09.2023, that the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 has been passed whereby after reiterating the aforesaid facts, respondent no. 3 has held that during pendency of criminal trial, the petitioner cannot be appointed and his case would be considered after decision of the criminal trial.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's family is suffering financial crisis while on the other hand, on merits he submits that criminal proceedings are based on false and frivolous facts and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be appointed on compassionate ground.
9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the question as to whether a person can be appointed on a Government post, has been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, and wherein the Apex Court has considered previous judgments and held that it is the discretion of the appointing authority to consider the facts and circumstances of the case including the charges levelled against the applicant and in pursuance to which he may take decision with regard to the fact as to whether a person is a fit candidate for being appointed on a Government post or not.
10. In the present case, the Executive Engineer after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specially the fact that the petitioner is facing criminal trial, where charges pertain to murder i.e. under Section 302 IPC have been levelled against the applicant and is of the opinion that his candidate for compassionate appointment can be considered only after conclusion of criminal trial.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. A person who is facing criminal trial, cannot be considered to be a person of such character who may be deemed to be fit for giving appointment on a Government post especially in cases, where charges pertaining to moral terpitude or such grievous charges are involved, which may interfere in due discharge of duty as a Government Servant and in the present case such issues are in full knowledge of the appointing authority.
13. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the impugned order is arbitrary or suffers from non application of mind inasmuch as in the impugned order the authority concerned has gone through the contents of first information report and has also discussed the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner and he is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner would be considered only after conclusion of criminal trial.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 22.11.2023.
15. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
16. However, aforesaid order would not restrain any other member of the family from giving an application for grant of compassionate appointment, in case they are eligible and qualified for being granted such appointment.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
