WPMS/2712/2016
2025 Latest Caselaw 5425 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2712/2016 on 11 November, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

             Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL.          proceedings or directions and
      Date                                                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                Registrar's order with
                       Signatures




                                                WPMS No.2712 of 2016
                                                Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./petitioners.

2. Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr. Zakir Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/1.

3. Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1/1 is taken on record. Misc. application (IA No.11838/2025) stands disposed of accordingly.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P./petitioners challenging the judgment and award dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 2011, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the State of U.P./petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman in service and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

5. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent-workman expired on 05.03.2025. Substitution was accordingly made, and the son of the deceased workman, Shri Rinku Kumar, was impleaded as respondent no. 1/1 in the present writ petition.

6. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that respondent no. 1/1, Shri Rinku Kumar, had moved an application for compassionate appointment in place of his late father, Shri Munesh Kumar, before the State of U.P./petitioners in the Irrigation Department.

7. This Court, on the said date, directed the learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P./petitioners to take a decision on the aforesaid application submitted by respondent no. 1/1, Rinku Kumar, for compassionate appointment.

8. Today, learned counsel for the State of U.P./petitioners has apprised this Court that the application/representation submitted by respondent no. 1/1, Rinku Kumar, for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 25.10.2025, a copy of which has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit (I.A. No. 11839 of 2025). The same is taken on record. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

9. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1/1, Rinku Kumar.

10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that respondent no. 1/1, Rinku Kumar, has an appropriate remedy available to challenge the aforesaid rejection order by filing a separate writ petition in accordance with law.

11. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands closed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.11.2025 AK