Gaurav Shukla vs State of U.P.and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner''s father had worked as daily wager employee upto 1977. Thereafter, since July, 1982, the father of the petitioner has discharged duty as workcharge employee. During the course of services, the father of the petitioner died and the petitioner''s candidature for appointment on compassionate ground under the DyinginHarness Rules has been rejected on the ground that the dependants of workcharge employees shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the judgement reported in (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337 Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Others and one another Full Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 1999 ACJ 1070, Kalyan Dutt Kaushik v. D.M. Hardwar and other and other unreported judgments and orders of this Court passed in W.P. No.306 (S/S)/2006 decided on 12.1.2006, W.P. No.5209 (S/S)/2004, decided on 17.9.2004 and W.P. No.4840(S/S)/2002, decided on 5.9.2002.

From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments and orders of this Court, it is obvious that the dependants of the workcharge employees shall also be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. While rejecting petitioner''s representation by the order dated 25th of March, 2006, the sole ground relied upon by the competent authority is that the dependants of the workcharge employees shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Primafacie, the impugned order passed by the opposite parties does not seem to be sustainable under law. While deciding the controversy in question by the impugned order, the competent authority had not considered the law laid down in the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra (supra) as well as other cases referred hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 25th of March, 2006 as contained in Annexure No.A to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Opposite parties are further directed to reconsider petitioner''s case for appointment on compassionate ground keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra (supra) as well as the other cases referred hereinabove by passing a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously and preferably within a periof of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner.

It shall be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority alongwith the copy of the order passed by this Court today as well as the various judgments referred hereinabove.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

(Petition allowed)