Ashish Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Finance Lucknow
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's father late Raj Kumar Singh died in harness on 20.9.2006 whereafter, in terms of applications made, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on a class IV post on 12.7.2016. It is submitted that the aforesaid appointment clearly ignored the aspect of petitioner being fully qualified for the purpose of appointment on Group-C post. It is next submitted that in view of financial distress being faced by petitioner's family at that time, he was compelled to join on the offered class IV post but soon thereafter he made representations and applications for appointment to a Group-C post in terms of his qualification. It is submitted that the words 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1974') indicate the fact that it has to be understood with reference to the post held by deceased employee in terms of qualification of dependents. It is also submitted that 2 WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 since petitioner's father at the time of demise was employed on a Group-C post and petitioner being fully eligible and qualified for appointment on Group-C post, opposite parties have erred in offering him employment on a class IV post.
4. It has further been submitted that opposite parties have lost sight of fact that petitioner was not agitating for a fresh appointment after being appointed on compassionate basis to a Class IV post, but has agitated for appointment to a suitable post, and there would be no question of any estoppel against petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) 17 SCC 280, State of U.P. Vs. Premlata
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's father late Raj Kumar Singh died in harness on 20.9.2006 whereafter, in terms of applications made, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on a class IV post on 12.7.2016. It is submitted that the aforesaid appointment clearly ignored the aspect of petitioner being fully qualified for the purpose of appointment on Group-C post. It is next submitted that in view of financial distress being faced by petitioner's family at that time, he was compelled to join on the offered class IV post but soon thereafter he made representations and applications for appointment to a Group-C post in terms of his qualification. It is submitted that the words 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1974') indicate the fact that it has to be understood with reference to the post held by deceased employee in terms of qualification of dependents. It is also submitted that 2 WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 since petitioner's father at the time of demise was employed on a Group-C post and petitioner being fully eligible and qualified for appointment on Group-C post, opposite parties have erred in offering him employment on a class IV post.
4. It has further been submitted that opposite parties have lost sight of fact that petitioner was not agitating for a fresh appointment after being appointed on compassionate basis to a Class IV post, but has agitated for appointment to a suitable post, and there would be no question of any estoppel against petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) 17 SCC 280, State of U.P. Vs. Premlata