CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Jagdish Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 November 2008 · Citation: (2008) 11 AHC CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Mateen, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.7141 (S/S) of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 364 words

A. Mateen, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2.

By means of this petition, the petitioner prays that a direction be issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in Class IV category in the department of the respondents under the provisions of DyinginHarness Rules, 1974.

3.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner (Ram Lal Yadav), while working on the post of Work Charge Establishment in the department of the respondents, died on 29.5.2008 in harness. Thereafter the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment by moving representation under the aforesaid Rules on 3.11.2008 as well as 5.11.2008 respectively but the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner under the aforesaid rules on the pretext that there being a Government Order dated 29.1.2003 which prohibits the grant of benefit to such persons who died while working on the post of Work Charge Establishment and their heirs cannot be given benefit of the aforesaid rules.

4.

Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Government Order dated 29.1.2003 has been stayed by this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (1) UPLBEC pg 489, and Satya Narain v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No.4108 (SS) of 2002 on 20.12.2004, as such, the petitioner is entitled being dependent of Ram Lal Yadav for employment under the aforesaid rules.

5.

In the circumstances, since the prayer seems to be innocuous in nature and looking into the fact that the petitioner seeks compassionate appointment, with the consent of parties counsel. I dispose of this petition finally with a direction to the Superintending Engineer, Pratapgarh/Fatehpur Circle. Public Works Department District Pratapgarh (respondents No.3) to decide the representation so preferred by the petitioner excluding consideration of Government Order dated 29.1.2003, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with the fresh representation is produced, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Court referred to above.

6.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is finally disposed of.