Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    JUDGMENT - ORDER IN - SERVICE BENCH No. 1187 of 2000 at Lucknow Dated-24.5.2017 CASE TITLE - The State of U.P.Through Secy. vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma

    Uploaded by

    EHV Cables
    This document is an uncertified copy of a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in India. The judgment addresses a writ petition filed against a State Public Services Tribunal order directing petitioners to appoint a claimant to a higher-level government job based on compassionate grounds. The High Court allows the writ petition and sets aside the Tribunal's order. It finds that once a claimant accepts an initial compassionate appointment, they exhaust their right to claim further appointments and cannot demand a higher-level job later based on qualifications. Relying on previous judgments, the High Court establishes that further consideration for compassionate appointments is not permitted once an initial appointment is made and accepted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    JUDGMENT - ORDER IN - SERVICE BENCH No. 1187 of 2000 at Lucknow Dated-24.5.2017 CASE TITLE - The State of U.P.Through Secy. vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma

    Uploaded by

    EHV Cables
    19 views2 pages
    This document is an uncertified copy of a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in India. The judgment addresses a writ petition filed against a State Public Services Tribunal order directing petitioners to appoint a claimant to a higher-level government job based on compassionate grounds. The High Court allows the writ petition and sets aside the Tribunal's order. It finds that once a claimant accepts an initial compassionate appointment, they exhaust their right to claim further appointments and cannot demand a higher-level job later based on qualifications. Relying on previous judgments, the High Court establishes that further consideration for compassionate appointments is not permitted once an initial appointment is made and accepted.

    Original Description:

    CG Appointment

    Original Title

    JUDGMENT_ORDER IN - SERVICE BENCH No. 1187 of 2000 at Lucknow Dated-24.5.2017 CASE TITLE - The State Of U.P.Through Secy. Vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an uncertified copy of a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in India. The judgment addresses a writ petition filed against a State Public Services Tribunal order directing petitioners to appoint a claimant to a higher-level government job based on compassionate grounds. The High Court allows the writ petition and sets aside the Tribunal's order. It finds that once a claimant accepts an initial compassionate appointment, they exhaust their right to claim further appointments and cannot demand a higher-level job later based on qualifications. Relying on previous judgments, the High Court establishes that further consideration for compassionate appointments is not permitted once an initial appointment is made and accepted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    19 views2 pages

    JUDGMENT - ORDER IN - SERVICE BENCH No. 1187 of 2000 at Lucknow Dated-24.5.2017 CASE TITLE - The State of U.P.Through Secy. vs. Pawan Kumar Sharma

    Uploaded by

    EHV Cables
    This document is an uncertified copy of a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in India. The judgment addresses a writ petition filed against a State Public Services Tribunal order directing petitioners to appoint a claimant to a higher-level government job based on compassionate grounds. The High Court allows the writ petition and sets aside the Tribunal's order. It finds that once a claimant accepts an initial compassionate appointment, they exhaust their right to claim further appointments and cannot demand a higher-level job later based on qualifications. Relying on previous judgments, the High Court establishes that further consideration for compassionate appointments is not permitted once an initial appointment is made and accepted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System

    (Judgment/Order in Text Format)

    This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified
    copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).
    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

    AFR
    Court No. - 3

    Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1187 of 2000

    Petitioner :- The State Of U.P. Through Secretary and others


    Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Sharma and another
    Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshwardhan
    Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., R.C. Pandey

    Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.


    Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
    1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for petitioners. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case
    has been called in revised and name of Sri R.C. Pandey is shown as counsel for respondent. Hence, we
    proceed to decide this case after hearing learned Standing Counsel for petitioners.
    2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against judgment and order dated
    21.01.2000 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim
    Petition No. 2575 of 1997.
    3. Father of Claimant-respondent, Pawan Kumar Sharma was an employee in Police Department and died in
    harness on 09.02.1991. Claimant-respondent was offered compassionate appointment on a Group D post by
    appointment letter dated 27.09.1994 pursuant whereto claimant-respondent joined. Subsequently, he claimed
    that according to his qualifications, he is entitled for appointment to a Group 'C' Post and when failed to receive
    any favour/response from petitioner, respondents filed Claim Petition No. 2575 of 1997 which has been
    allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment directing petitioners to appoint claimant-respondent on a Group C
    post.
    4. The view taken by Tribunal is in the teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao
    Singh, 1994(6) SCC 560 wherein Court has clearly held that once an appointment has been made and the
    incumbent has joined on a lower post, right to claim compassionate appointment exhausted on that very date
    and he cannot be allowed to set up his claim for appointment on a higher post on compassionate basis and the
    decision given by High Court of Rajasthan otherwise was reversed by Apex Court. In para 8 of the judgment,
    Court held:
    "...He was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14.12.1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC.
    Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No
    further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless
    compassion"."
    5. Again this issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Sharma Vs. District
    Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others, 2000(4) AWC 3262. There the legal heir of the deceased employee
    was given appointment on compassionate basis as Clerk. Subsequently, he became qualified for the post of
    Assistant Teacher and claimed that he was entitled to be considered for appointment on the said post on
    compassionate ground. Relying on Umrao Singh (supra), Court held that once appointment has been made on
    compassionate ground, the claimant is not entitled to get any other appointment on different post simply
    because he has now obtained qualification for other post subsequently.
    6. In Kamlesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2188, Sri Pandey was
    appointed on compassionate basis as a class-IV employee. He accepted appointment and joined service
    without any objection. Claiming thereafter appointment on a class-III post he approached this Court. Rejecting
    the claim, it was held:
    "Once having accepted an appointment, may be on Class-IV post under existing situation out of will and
    volition, the 'chapter' of Dying in Harness is closed. No one should be permitted to re-agitate this matter in
    future on the basis of change of circumstances in further leaving everything in turmoil and in a state of
    indecisiveness. It if is permitted, no litigation will ever come to an end." (Para 10)
    7. Similar is the view taken by another Single Judge in Raghunandan Pandey Vs. District Inspector of Schools,
    Basti and others, 2004(3) AWC 2535 and in para 8 of the judgment the Court said:
    "It is well-settled that appointment on compassionate ground is given only to tide away the sudden financial
    crisis which the family of the deceased employee faces because of the sudden death of the sole bread earner
    of the family. Thus, once a member of the family of the deceased employee is given appointment on such
    ground, which is also accepted by the claimant, the reason for giving such appointment, which is for support to
    the family of the deceased employee, does not exist thereafter. The appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
    Rules cannot be made an alternate source or mode of appointment."
    8. In Shyamdhar Mishra Vs. State of U.P., 2006(2) AWC 1415 reiterating the aforesaid view following Umrao
    Singh (supra), this Court in para 9 of the judgment held:
    "In my view, once the appointment is made on the compassionate ground, the said rule comes to an end and
    no further appointment could be made under the said Rules. The authority could not, in any manner,
    reconsider the case of the petitioner or of any other person where an appointment had already been given at
    some anterior point of time, on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules." (emphasis added)
    9. The same thing has been reiterated in Suresh Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006(4) AWC
    3718 (para 5).
    10. Another Division Bench of this Court, following Umrao Singh (supra), in Shardendu Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
    & others in Special Appeal 908 of 2006 decided on 22.8.2006 held as under :
    "The submission of learned Standing Counsel that once compassionate appointment is accepted, the right is
    exhausted and there cannot be any second consideration for the same right is well founded. The judgment of
    Apex Court in State of Rajasthan (supra) fully support the said submission."
    11. In Rajesh Mahajan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (2) ADJ 55, this Court said "Once an appointment is
    made on compassionate basis, the incumbent ceased to have any right to claim further appointment on any
    other post equivalent or higher status".
    12. Here also, learned Single Judge relied on judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh (supra).
    13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that Tribunal has clearly erred in law in holding
    otherwise. Judgment impugned in this writ petition, therefore, cannot be sustained.
    14. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Judgment and order dated 21.01.2000 is hereby set aside. Claim
    Petition No. 2575 of 1997 is hereby dismissed.
    Order Date :- 24.5.2017
    Shubham

    Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders


    delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer

    You might also like