Raju Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3079 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Raju Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public ... on 7 January, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:961-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 5 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Raju Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Singh,Saurabh Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
 

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 9275 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed with certain directions.

3. Admittedly, father of the appellant-petitioner while working on the post of Chaukidar in the office of Executive Engineer (Constructions Division - II), Public Works Department, Pratapgarh died on 16.01.2023. When the appellant-petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 23.01.2023, the competent authority has passed an order dated 22.11.2023 that the case of the appellant-petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment can be considered only after conclusion of criminal trial pending against the appellant-petitioner arising out of 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 the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.

4. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [2016 (8) SCC 471], particularly in para 38.5, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. However, it was provided that if any person is eligible and qualified for being granted compassionate appointment, he may do so whose credentials are free from any such defect.

5. For ready reference, para 38.5 of the judgment reads as under :-

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the submissions put-forth before us to challenge the order impugned. However, the protection granted by the writ court, if not availed of, is expected to be availed by any other member of the family, as mentioned in paragraph - 16 of the impugned writ judgement and the same shall be considered by the appointing authority expeditiously, in accordance with law.

7. The Special Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

.

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

Order Date :- 7.1.2025

kanhaiya