Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs Sub Divisional Officer Mehrauni on 3 July, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41576 of 1992 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Respondent :- Sub Divisional Officer Mehrauni Petitioner Counsel :- P.Khanna,Pradeep Chandra Respondent Counsel :- S.C. On restoration Application :-- Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 09.09.2009. Cause shown is to the satisfaction of the Court. Order dated 09.09.2009 is recalled.
Writ petition is restored to its original number. Dated : 03.07.2010 VR/41576/92 Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Writ petition is restored to its original number. For orders, see order of date, passed on the recall application.
Dated : 03.07.2010 VR/41576/92 Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Court No. 18Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41576 of 1992.
Sanjay Kumar Pandey Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Mehrauni, District Lalitpur and others.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
This writ petition was filed in the year 1992 challenging the order dated 30.12.1992, (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereunder the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mehrauni, District Lalitpur (The Appointing Authority) informed the petitioner that on his Application No. 12 dated 29.01.1985, he was selected for appointment on compassion on purely temporary basis as Lekhpal, under an order of the District Magistrate dated 23.12.1989. It has been recorded that his elder brother namely M.K.Pandey has been offered such compassionate appointment earlier on his application dated 31.10.1984 and is actually working on the post of Lekhpal in pursuance thereof. It has been recorded that only one person from the family of a deceased employee could have been offered compassionate appointment, therefore, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with in terms of the order of appointment.
The order is being challenged on the ground that the petitioner was selected by a Selection Committee constituted by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi wherein 250 candidates participated. He was also sent for training. After the petitioner had completed his training, he was offered appointment under the letter of the District Magistrate dated 23.12.1989, referred to above. It is claimed that the petitioner had not asked for any compassionate appointment and that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before terminating his appointment. Reference has also been made to a list filed along with rejoinder affidavit (Annexure-RA-1 dated 02.11.1987) which according to the petitioner is the select list wherein his name finds mentioned at Serial No. 02 within the General Category. It is, therefore, contended that the reasons assigned in the impugned order for terminating the appointment of the petitioner are non est and even otherwise illegal.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents and it has been stated that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on 29.01.1985 before the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, copy of the application has been enclosed as Annexure-CA-
1. It has further been stated that the documents enclosed as Annexure-1 is a forged documents and that in his application form at the top, it was specifically mentioned as follows :
"Sarkari Sewa Mein Mritak Karmhcari Ke Ashrit".
It was on the application of the petitioner that he was asked to appear in the office of the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi for interview on 07.06.1997. The call letter has been enclosed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. With reference to the aforesaid it is pointed out that the petitioner was offered/selected for being sent for training in the institution for training of Lekhpal only on the basis of the said application wherein he claimed to be a dependent of an ex employee. It has further been stated that he was offered appointment on purely temporary basis, his services could be terminated at any point of time in terms of the appointment letter. The order dated 30.12.1992 has been issued after providing one month salary in lieu of notice through Bank Draft bearing no. QSR 222051.
The averments made in the counter affidavit have been replied by means of rejoined affidavit which has been filed only after the writ petition was dismissed in default. In the rejoinder affidavit, the application made by the petitioner which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 is not dispute nor the endorsement made thereon as pointed out in the counter affidavit is in dispute. What is stated that the office of the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi for its own convenience has made certain endorsement on the application of the petitioner qua his being a dependent of an ex employee. Petitioner has not disputed the document enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition wherein he had specifically stated before the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi that his father had expired during harness on 19.09.1994 and the petitioner may be sent for training of Lekhpal. It is with reference to this application and the form submitted by the petitioner that a specific endorsement has been made on the application submitted by the petitioner in the prescribed proforma, referred to above. So far as the appointment of Lekhpal in U.P. Revenue Services is concerned, the same is regulated under the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (herein after referred to as Rules, 1958). The source of recruitment on the post of Lekhpal has been provided under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, 1958. From a bare reading of Rule 5, it would be apparently clear that the candidates who have obtained Lekhpal's certificate and whose name has been mentioned under Rule 6, are eligible for appointment to the service (other clauses are not applicable in the case of the petitioner).
From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the petitioner would become entitled to work as Lekhpal only if he had obtained Lekhpal Training Certificate and it is for this purpose that he had made the application before the Commissioner, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-CA-1, for being sent for the training of Lekhpal on the plea that his father had expired during harness while employed in revenue service of the State. The contention of the petitioner that he was selected is, therefore, incorrect. It is only with reference to his application and the form submitted by him wherein there is an specific endorsement that he is within the category of dependent of ex serviceman, he has been sent for training of Lekhpal. Further, since it is not in dispute that such compassionate appointment has already been offered to his elder brother who is already working as Lekhpal in the Revenue department, the authorities are legally justified in terminating the engagement of the petitioner after giving one month's salary in lieu of notice. The action taken is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment offered to the petitioner. There is no illegality in the order so passed.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Dated : 03.07.2010 VR/41576/92