High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Vinay Yadav @ Vinay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Hari Krishna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28th March, 2022 whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected primarily on the ground that his father late Ram Dayal had not been regularized in service and therefore since he was not regular employee, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

3. It has been submitted that the impugned order itself clearly indicates the fact that petitioner's father had been initially engaged in service on daily wage basis on 5th August,1996 but his services were terminated vide order dated 16th October, 1996 whereagainst he had filed writ petition and in terms of interim protection was continued in service whereafter he passed away on 19th July, 2015.

4. It is further submitted that prior to his demise, petitioner's father alongwith two other persons had filed writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005. During pendency of this writ petition, the other two petitioners of the said petition were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019 but case of petitioner's father was not considered since he had already passed away. The said petition was thereafter decided vide order dated 17th August, 2022 with a direction to opposite parties to decide claim of remaining petitioners with regard to retrospective regularization.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore submits that his case is fully covered by judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Kuldeep Thakur 2017 (35) Lucknow Civil Decisions 696.

6. Learned State Counsel has adverted to paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit to submit that the aforesaid facts as narrated herein above are correct but services of petitioner's late father were not regularized since he passed away on 19th July, 2015 and therefore since he had not been regularized in service, petitioner was not covered under regularization rules.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as narrated herein above are admitted by learned counsel for parties. It therefore transpires that petitioner's late father continued in service as an unregularized workman since 5th August, 1996 and passed away during such service on 19th July, 2015. It is also evident that he was a party in writ petition No. 1707(S/S) of 2005, during pendency of which other similarly situated petitioners were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019. The case of petitioner's father was not considered only on the ground that he had passed away in 2015.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fortutous circumstance of petitioner's father having passed away during pendency of the writ petition can not be an occasion to deny benefit of regularization of services to petitioner's late father since such benefit would accrue to petitioner also. This is more so particularly in view of the fact that other petitioners of the said writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005, who were similarly placed as petitioner's late father were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019.

9. It is in these circumstances that in case petitioner's father was found entitled for regularization, he would have been regularized but for his unfortunate demise and in case he would have been regularized, benefit of compassionate appointment would have accrued to petitioner.

10. The aforesaid analogy has also been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) in the following manner:- "11. Applying the said analogy, the claim of the father of the respondent petitioner had already been forwarded and he was very much alive when the Government order dated 13.08.2015 was issued. In such a situation the State Government or its concerned department ought to have considered the claim of the respondent petitioner for regularization and then could have proceeded to determine as to whether the respondent petitioner was entitled to any benefit or not. In our opinion, the fortuitous circumstance of the death of the father of the respondent petitioner does not absolve the State Government of its obligation to consider the claim of regularization of the father of the respondent petitioner. There can be a case where the consideration has been made and the regularization accepted but before the order reaches a man dies or his death takes place in the near vicinity or simultaneously with regularization. In this situation, the claim of regularization of the deceased employee does not remain an option to be ignored by the State Government. The State Government or its authorities are under an obligation to consider such a claim and to award any consequential benefits if the process has been set into motion as has happened in the present case. Once the father of the respondent petitioner is found entitled to be regularized as on the date of the Government order dated 13.08.2015, on which date he was admittedly alive, then in that event the claim of the respondent petitioner can also be considered."

11. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reasoning given in the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.

12. Consequently the impugned order dated 28th March, 2022 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari with a direction to opposite party No.2 i.e. District Collector, Lucknow to consider claim of petitioner's father for regularization and if it is found by the authority concerned that late Ram Dayal was otherwise entitled to be regularized in service in parity with the other petitioners of writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005, consideration of petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) shall also be considered. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

13. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Vinay Yadav @ Vinay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Hari Krishna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28th March, 2022 whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected primarily on the ground that his father late Ram Dayal had not been regularized in service and therefore since he was not regular employee, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

3. It has been submitted that the impugned order itself clearly indicates the fact that petitioner's father had been initially engaged in service on daily wage basis on 5th August,1996 but his services were terminated vide order dated 16th October, 1996 whereagainst he had filed writ petition and in terms of interim protection was continued in service whereafter he passed away on 19th July, 2015.

4. It is further submitted that prior to his demise, petitioner's father alongwith two other persons had filed writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005. During pendency of this writ petition, the other two petitioners of the said petition were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019 but case of petitioner's father was not considered since he had already passed away. The said petition was thereafter decided vide order dated 17th August, 2022 with a direction to opposite parties to decide claim of remaining petitioners with regard to retrospective regularization.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner therefore submits that his case is fully covered by judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others versus Kuldeep Thakur 2017 (35) Lucknow Civil Decisions 696.

6. Learned State Counsel has adverted to paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit to submit that the aforesaid facts as narrated herein above are correct but services of petitioner's late father were not regularized since he passed away on 19th July, 2015 and therefore since he had not been regularized in service, petitioner was not covered under regularization rules.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as narrated herein above are admitted by learned counsel for parties. It therefore transpires that petitioner's late father continued in service as an unregularized workman since 5th August, 1996 and passed away during such service on 19th July, 2015. It is also evident that he was a party in writ petition No. 1707(S/S) of 2005, during pendency of which other similarly situated petitioners were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019. The case of petitioner's father was not considered only on the ground that he had passed away in 2015.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fortutous circumstance of petitioner's father having passed away during pendency of the writ petition can not be an occasion to deny benefit of regularization of services to petitioner's late father since such benefit would accrue to petitioner also. This is more so particularly in view of the fact that other petitioners of the said writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005, who were similarly placed as petitioner's late father were regularized in service vide order dated 27th February, 2019.

9. It is in these circumstances that in case petitioner's father was found entitled for regularization, he would have been regularized but for his unfortunate demise and in case he would have been regularized, benefit of compassionate appointment would have accrued to petitioner.

10. The aforesaid analogy has also been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) in the following manner:- "11. Applying the said analogy, the claim of the father of the respondent petitioner had already been forwarded and he was very much alive when the Government order dated 13.08.2015 was issued. In such a situation the State Government or its concerned department ought to have considered the claim of the respondent petitioner for regularization and then could have proceeded to determine as to whether the respondent petitioner was entitled to any benefit or not. In our opinion, the fortuitous circumstance of the death of the father of the respondent petitioner does not absolve the State Government of its obligation to consider the claim of regularization of the father of the respondent petitioner. There can be a case where the consideration has been made and the regularization accepted but before the order reaches a man dies or his death takes place in the near vicinity or simultaneously with regularization. In this situation, the claim of regularization of the deceased employee does not remain an option to be ignored by the State Government. The State Government or its authorities are under an obligation to consider such a claim and to award any consequential benefits if the process has been set into motion as has happened in the present case. Once the father of the respondent petitioner is found entitled to be regularized as on the date of the Government order dated 13.08.2015, on which date he was admittedly alive, then in that event the claim of the respondent petitioner can also be considered."

11. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the reasoning given in the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.

12. Consequently the impugned order dated 28th March, 2022 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari with a direction to opposite party No.2 i.e. District Collector, Lucknow to consider claim of petitioner's father for regularization and if it is found by the authority concerned that late Ram Dayal was otherwise entitled to be regularized in service in parity with the other petitioners of writ petition No. 1707 (S/S) of 2005, consideration of petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) shall also be considered. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

13. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench