Allahabad High Court
Sohan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 April, 2025
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48678
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4076 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sohan Lal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 6.
The petitioner's mother was appointed as a safaikarmi in Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur on 18.06.1984. The appointment of the petitioner's mother was made on a permanent basis. The mother of the petitioner died in harness on 27.06.2021.
The claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate grounds appointment has been declined by the impugned order dated 20.12.2021. The impugned order records that the mother of the petitioner was a permanent employee. She died in harness on 27.06.2021. The application submitted by the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has been declined on the footing that the petitioner's mother was appointed against a vacancy caused by the resignation of an employee.
The reasons for invalidating the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as disclosed in the impugned order are arbitrary and untenable in law. In fact the impugned order self destructs, inasmuch as, it records that the appointment of the petitioner's mother was permanent in nature. No departmental enquiry was held into the validity of the appointment of the petitioner's mother at any point in time.
The narrative has the benefit of authorities in point. A similar fact situation arose before this Court Karan Addiwal v. State of U.P. and 5 others ( Writ-A No.1941 of 2023) wherein the claim of the dependent of deceased-employee was rejected on the ground that his father was appointed after the resignation of his grand father and hence the appointment was not valid.
In Karan Addiwal (supra), Neeraj Tiwari, J. held as under:
"Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted that once, it is undisputed that father of petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground after resignation of his grand-father and he was permitted to continue in service till his death i.e. 18.02.2019. No departmental proceeding has ever been initiated against father of petitioner, therefore, after his death, application of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that appointment of his father was bad and de hors the rules. He next submitted that as on date, father of petitioner is not alive, therefore, no departmental proceeding can be initiated against him. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through Lrs. vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022) decided on 28.09.2022.
Learned counsel for respondents though opposed, but could not dispute the factual as well as legal submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.
Facts of the case are undisputed. Appointment of father of petitioner cannot be treated invalid or contrary to the rules after his death coupled with this fact that against his appointment, he was never charge sheeted. Therefore, appointment of father of petitioner shall be treated valid and application of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected on the ground that appointment of his father was bad and contrary to the rules.
Law is very well settled that against a dead person, no inquiry proceeding can be initiated as held by the Apex Court in the matter of R.K.S. Rathore (Supra) and the said judgment is also followed by this Court in Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022. Relevant paragraph of R.K.S. Rathore (Supra) is quoted below:-
"8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal will have the same consequences as the appeal being allowed.
9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs."
Therefore, under such facts of the case as well as law laid down by the Courts, impugned order dated 03.07.2019 is bad and hereby quashed.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Matter is remitted back to respondent-authorities to pass fresh order in accordance with rules, maximum within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that application of petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that appointment of father of petitioner was bad and contrary to the rules."
The judgement of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal wherein the learned Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.317 of 2023 (Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam Through Its Chief Executive Officers and 2 others v. Karan Addiwal and 3 others) while affirming the order of Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J. held as under:
"It appears that the writ petitioner namely respondent no.1 herein has moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in harness on 18.2.2019. The said application has been rejected on the ground that the appointment of father of the petitioner itself was bad, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner got appointment after resignation of the grandfather of the writ petitioner though there was no provision for the same.
We may note that the father of the petitioner namely the deceased employee had been appointed by an order of the Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur on 1.6.1991 and had continued in service till his untimely death. During the entire service period of the deceased employee, neither any dispute had been raised with regard to the validity of his appointment nor any adjudication had been made any competent authority or a court of law. It is, therefore, not permitted for the respondents to make any inquiry into the validity of the appointment of the deceased employee made on 1.6.1991 by then Executive Officer, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur, after his death, at the time of consideration of claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on account of untimely death of his father.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge. While confirming the findings returned by the learned Single Judge, we dispose off the present appeal with a direction to the appellant to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is disposed off."
The case instant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements in point.
In this wake, the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.6-Nagar Swashya Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondents-authorities for fresh consideration as per law.
The case of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The respondents-authorities shall decide the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate grounds appointment without going into the validity of the mother's appointment.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 5.4.2025
Ashish Tripathi
