Shivam Kumar v. D.M. Sitapur and Ors

[ 1 ] Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17150 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shivam Kumar Respondent :- D.M. Sitapur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Rastogi,Chenawati,Mukesh Kumar Soni,Pradeep Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State Authorities.

¶2This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking quashing of the order dated 06.04.2018 whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short "Rules, 1974") has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's father was a contractual employee, and he was not substantively in service. This fact is not denied in the writ petition that father of the petitioner was only a contractual employee.

¶3The definition clause of the Rules, 1974 is rule-2, which reads as under:- ßifjHkk"kk;sa& tc rd fd lanHkZ ls vU;Fkk visf{kr u gks bl fu;ekoyh esa]& ¼d½ ljdkjh lsod dk rkRi;Z mRRkj izns'k ds dk;Zdyki ds lEcU/k esa lsok;ksftr ,sls ljdkjh lsod ls gS tks&

(1) ,sls lsok;kstu esa LFkk;h ;k vLFkk;h

(2) ;|kfi vLFkk;h gSa rFkkfi ,sls lsok;kstuksa esa fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk ;k

(3) ;|kfi fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr ugha gS rFkfi ,sls lsok;kstuksa esa fu;fer fjfDr esa rhu o"kZ dh fujUrj lsok dh gSA Li"Vhdj.k& ßfu;fer :i fu;qfDrß dk rkRi;Z ;FkkfLFkfr] in ij ;k lsok esa HkrhZ ds fy, vf/kdfFkr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fd, tkus ls gS] [ 2 ] ¼[k½ ße`r ljdkjh lsodß dk rkRi;Z ,sls ljdkjh lsod ls gS ftudh e`R;q lsok esa jgrs gq, gks tk;] ¼x½ ÞdqVqEcß ds vUrxZr e`r ljdkjh lsod ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh gksaxs&

(1) iRuh ;k ifr]

(2) iq=

(3) vfookfgr iqf=;k¡ rFkk fo/kok iqf=;k¡A ¿ ¼†½ e`r ljdkjh lsod ij fuHkZj vfookfgr HkkbZ] vfookfgr cgu] vkSj fo/kok ekrk] ;fn e`r ljdkjh lsod vfookfgr FkkAÀ ¼?k½ ßdk;kZy; dk iz/kkuß dk rkRi;Z ml dk;kZy; ds iz/kku ls gS ftl

dk;kZy; esa e`r ljdkjh lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ lsokjr FkkA

¶4The father of the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law and procedure prescribed for appointment on Class-IV Post and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The Rules, 1974 itself provide that a temporary employee cannot be an employee in accordance with law, and under the relevant Rules, his depandant shall not be entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶5In view thereof, I find that the competent Authority has not committed any error while passing the order impugned herein, which requires interference by this Court. Hence, this writ petition, being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. [D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 10.7.2023 MVS/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench