Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13026 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lalitkant Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Nath Singh,Pramendra Pratap Singh,Premshankar Shukla,Virendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by District Development Officer, Ghazipur whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
3. The father of the petitioner Lallan Tiwari was working on the post of Accountant in Block Development Office, Barachaur, District Ghazipur and had died on 07.09.2016 during service period. On the date of death of his father, petitioner being eligible for compassionate appointment submitted application to the respondent no.4 District Development Officer, Ghazipur seeking compassionate appointment. On the application of the petitioner, a notice dated 17.04.2018 was issued to petitioner asking him to submit a succession certificate and also the details of income of all the persons mentioned in the succession certificate.
4. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner submitted the aforesaid details on 23.04.2018 and after the submission of aforesaid details, an inquiry was conducted with regard to the correctness of the details submitted by the petitioner in respect to income. On enquiry, it was found that the family of the petitioner has 4.71 hectare agricultural land, Rs. 4,000/- is monthly income of Lalit Narayan Tripathi, Rs. 3,500/- is monthly income of Sri Lalit Kant Tripathi and Rs. 8,000/- is monthly income of Shashi Kant Tripathi. Besides above, mother of the petitioner has been paid retiral dues amounting to Rs. 33,65,448/- and she is getting pension of Rs. 30,441/- per month.
5. The respondent no. 4 considered the financial status of the family and found that the family of the petitioner has sufficient means to bear their expenses, therefore, no hardship is faced by the family of the petitioner so as to entitle him for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, he has passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the Government Order dated 17.06.2014 which was issued pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Service Single No.2228 of 2014 (Prakash Agarwal Vs. Registrar General Allahabad High Court, Allahabad and Others) which provides that the appointment under dying in harness cannot be refused, mainly on the ground that the financial status of the petitioner is sound. He submits that payment of the retiral benefits at the time of death of deceased employee cannot be a ground for refusal of compassionate appointment under dying in harness rules.
7. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 4 while deciding the claim of the petitioner has ignored the Government Order dated 17.06.2014 which provides that the claim of compassionate appointment shall be considered in the light of principles laid down in the case of Prakash Agarwal (supra).
8. Sri Santosh Singh, learned Standing Counsel contended that it is not in dispute that financial condition of the petitioner is sound inasmuch as all the other family members of the petitioner are earning, beside above, the mother of the petitioner is getting handsome amount of Rs. 30,441/- and has also received an amount of Rs. 33,65,448/- as retiral dues and therefore, the respondent no. 4 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
9. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
10. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Government Order dated 17.06.2014 which is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"प्रेषक, राजीव कु मार, प्रमख सचिचिव, सचेवा मे, उत्तर प्रदेश शासचन। सचमस्त प्रमुख सचिचिव/सचिचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश शासचन। िवषयः उत्तर प्रदेश सचेवा काल मे मृत सचरकारी सचेवकों के आश्रितोश्रितों के सचवायोजन क सचम्बन्ध मे। महोदय, सचरकारी सचेवकों की सचेवाकाल मे मृत्यु हो जाने पर उनके आश्रितोश्रितों को तात्काितोलक आश्रितोथरक सचंकट सचे उबारने हेतु "उत्तर प्रदेश सचेवाकाल मे मृत सचरकारी सचेवकों के आश्रितोश्रितों की भर्ती िनयमावली, 1974” (यथासचंशोितोधत) िनगरत की गयी है। उक िनयमावली मे मृतक आश्रितोश्रित की िनयिु क उत्तर प्रदेश लोक सचेवा आश्रयोग िक पिरितोध के बाहर के पदों एवं सचमूह 'ग’ एवं ’घ’ के पदों पर िकये जाने की व्यवसच्था है। इसच िनयमावली मे अब तक ग्यारह सचंशोधन िकये गये ह। ग्यारह सचंशोधन सचंलग्न िकये जा रहे ह।ै मूल िनयमावली तथा अब तक िकये 2. मृतक आश्रितोश्रित िनयिु क के सचम्बन्ध मे योितोजत ितोसचिवल िमसच 0 िरट यािचिका सचंख्या- 2228 (एसच 0 एसच 0)/2014 प्रकाश अग्रवाल बनाम रितोजस्टर ार जनरल, उच्चि न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद मे मा0 उच्चि न्यायालय लखनऊ खण्डपीठ द्वारा पािरत आश्रदेश िदनांक 17-4-2014 के प्रस्तर-49 मे िनम्नितोलितोखत सचंवीक्षाएं की गयी ह।ै -
(a) Application should be disposed of within three months from the date dependent applies for a job. Under Rules, no time limit is prescribed but intent of the rule is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family to meet immediate financial crisis [Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra)]. In this background, Appropriate Authority is supposed to dispose of such applications within a shortest possible time. In any case, application should not be kept pending for more than three months.
(b) Appointment under the Rules cannot be refused merely on the ground that financial status of the applicant is sound. Nor payment of retiral benefits at the time of death, furnishes any ground for refusal.
(c) Non availability of posts is no ground to refuse appointment.
(d) Appointment on Class III post cannot be refused merely on the ground that deceased was Class III/IV employee.
(e) Appointment has to be offered according to qualification and suitability of candidate and the applicant should be given an appointment commensurate therewith. If appointing authority does not give appointment on the post claimed by applicant because of non- suitability, reasons have to be recorded by the appointing authority.
(f) Dependent of deceased has no right to claim particular position or place and it is in the discretion of the appointing authority to pass appropriate order warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. इसच सचम्बन्ध मे मुझे यह कहने का िनदेसच हुआश्र है िक मृत सचरकारी सचेवकों क आश्रितोश्रितों की िनयिु क के पिरप्रेक्ष्य मे मा0 उच्चि न्यायालय की उपयरक सचंवीक्षाओं का कृ पया कड़ाई सचे अनपालन सचुिनित श्चित करने का कष्ट कर। भर्वदीय राजीव कु मार, प्रमुख सचिचिव।"
11. Perusal of the Government Order shows that the said government order has been issued in the light of judgement of this Court in the case of Prakash Agarwal (supra). The Government Order provides that the appointment under the dying in harness cannot be refused on the ground that the financial status of the petitioner is sound or handsome amount by way of retiral benefits has been received by the mother of the petitioner.
12. The order impugned does not reflect that it has given due consideration to the Government Order dated 17.06.2014 which provide the guidelines for considering the application for compassionate appointment.
13. Since the order impugned has been passed ignoring the government order dated 17.06.2014, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of learned Standing Counsel, and as such the impugned order is not sustainable and same is quashed.
14. The writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondent no. 4, District Development Officer, Ghazipur to pass a fresh order in the light of guidelines given in the government order dated 17.06.2014 extracted above expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Ujjawal