ASHUTOSH PRATAP v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. CO-OPERATIVE GOVT. OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/12194/2024 · 2025-02-27
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169907 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169907 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11891 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12194 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Jitendra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Sharma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, and Sri Alok Sharma,
learned counsel for respondent no.3.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the writ petition is being decided finally.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner's father was working as a Chaukidar under respondent no.3 he died on 08.04.2022. The petitioner staked his claim for being appointed on compassionate ground which was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 05.06.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, solely on the ground that at the time of death of the petitioner's father he was not a regular employee.
4. Today Sri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3, has stated on the basis of instructions sent by respondent no.3 that the father of petitioner namely Sri Ram Kishun had been absorbed on 01.12.2014.
5. Thus, from a perusal of the instructions as made available to the learned counsel for respondent no.3 it is apparent that the petitioner's father was a regular employee of respondent no.3 in view of the absorption dated 01.12.2014 and thus the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by means of order impugned that the petitioner's father was not a regular employee cannot clearly be countenanced in any view of the matter.
6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 05.06.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondent no.3 is
directed to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and
relevant rules.
7. Let a decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.2.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench