Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar Sharma vs Managing Director Uttar Pradesh State ... on 9 January, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21183 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Sharma Respondent :- Managing Director Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vijendra Kumar Rai,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Upon an earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 8867 of 2018, following orders were passed on 28.3.2018:-
"Heard Sri Pankaj Lal for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh for respondents-1 and 2.
This writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing Regional Manager (respondent-2) to decide the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on a suitable post in Dying in Harness Quota.
It has been stated that Smt. Meera Devi (mother of the petitioner), was Senior Clerk in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. She died in harness on 12.12.2014. After her death, two applications, i.e. one by Smt. Meena Devi (married sister of the petitioner) and the other by the petitioner, have been filed for compassionate appointment. Application of Meena Devi was rejected by Regional Manager, by the order dated 6.8.2016, holding that she does not come within the purview of compassionate appointment. Since the application of Smt. Meena Devi has already been rejected, as such, application of the petitioner is liable to be considered, but no order has been passed in respect of the application of the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the Regional Manager (respondent-2) to appropriate order on the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, within three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him."
Petitioner's claim accordingly has been considered by the Regional Manager vide order dated 26.12.2018, which is challenged in this petition. The order of the Regional Manager states that no objection certificate is required to be obtained from respondent no. 3, who happens to be the married daughter of the deceased employee. It has also been observed that the petitioner's claim is liable to be referred to the State Government so that there is no violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter.
Admittedly, the death of employee has occurred on 12.12.2014 and the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been filed well within the period of five years. In such circumstances, there would be no requirement in law or any judgment of the Apex Court to refer petitioner's claim to the State Government. The observations contained in the order of the Regional Manager appears to have been made without any application of mind. So far as claim of respondent no. 3 is concerned, it is on record that her application has already been rejected in the year 2016 and the order dated 6.8.2016, in that regard, has attained finality.
In such circumstances, the order passed by the Regional Manager dated 26.12.2018, directing the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate or reference of the application to State Government, is wholly uncalled for and cannot be sustained.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction upon the Regional Manager concerned to pass a fresh order upon the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment on merits and the conditions that have been imposed in the order shall not stand in the way of petitioner's claim. The required order would be passed within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 n.u.