Court No. - 13
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61535 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rahul Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jairaj Singh,Sanjai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The petitioner's father Late Shiv Shankar Yadav was working as constable in the Excise Department while he died on 10.1.2008 in harness and as Rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the State of U.P. are provided for compassionate appointment in case of death of employee in harness and accordingly the applicant made an application. Since petitioner was qualified to be appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector, Excise, therefore, he requested that he should be offered an appointment as per his qualification. However, since there was no vacancy existing in respect of post demanded for, the petitioner was offered appointment as Excise Clerk vide order dated 16th July, 2010, (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Similar appointment was also offered to one Harendra Singh vide order dated 27th March, 2008. It is contended that said appointment was accepted with rider that as and when any vacancy was available for the post of Sub Inspector Excise, they were to be adjusted against such vacancy. However, the application of all such employees who were offered appointment on a lower rank of post came to be rejected by department. Accordingly, such petitioners had filed writ petition before this Court including petitioner for consideration of their claim. During pendency of the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.2.2011. It has also been challenged by means of amendment application and amendment has been allowed. The prayer in that regard has also been incorporated in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 28.5.2005 passed in writ petition no. 58341 of 2010, Harendra Singh v. Stae of U.P. and Others in which identical impugned order dated 11.2.2011 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent for reconsideration and for passing appropriate order in accordance with law.
Since claim of the petitioner is identical to that of Harendra Singh, he prays for similar relief. Learned Standing Counsel, however, states that consideration of the claim of the petitioner could not have been made as the petitioner was not of 21 years of age on the date of his application seeking compassionate appointment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that claim of the petitioner deserves reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Court in Harendra Singh's case (supra). The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms of the order passed in Harindra Singh's case (supra) However, it is made clear that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered looking to his eligibility in terms of requisite qualification and age at the time of his application for claim being set up under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 .
Orders may be passed as expeditiously as possible within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The impugned order dated 11.2.2011 shall abide by decision that may be taken by the authority concerned in the light of observations made herein above.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Sanjeev