# Anurudh Kumar &Ors v. State of U.P. &Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 741 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-07-08 - **Case number:** Writ- A No. 9868 of 2019 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Saral Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurudh-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44469 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. The Constitution of India Articles 14, 19 and 21 - Vires and Validity of Rule 222(D) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 as amended by the 26th Amendment - Direction for issuance of fitness certificate and permit in respect of the petitioners vehicles beyond 10 years up to 15 years as has been provided for the educational institutions bus/vehicle. 742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES The legislature in its wisdom has categorised the vehicles into two categories i.e. the educational/institutional vehicles and the other private/commercial or contract vehicles. This categorisation is for the reason that these two categories of vehicle form a separate class and cannot be equated. The use and running of educational institutional vehicles is very limited whereas other private/commercial or contract vehicles have a very wide and expensive use resulting in their speedy wear and tear. Therefore, the life of the two categories of vehicle has been provided differently. (Para 6) B. Reasonable Classification - The classification of the two categories of vehicles is a reasonable and valid classification. Accordingly, there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the period fixed for the running of the aforesaid two categories of vehicles. The vehicles owned and used by the petitioners are not the vehicles owned by the college/school or any educational institutions and, therefore, mere hiring of said vehicles by the educational institutions would not bring them within the purview of educational institutional buses as defined under the Act. Writ Petitions dismissed. (Para 7 and 8) (E-3) ## Text 1 All. Anurudh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 741 compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 36. In MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrawarti Singh (2014) 13 SCC 583, Court has said that compassionate appointment cannot be granted as of right and application for compassionate appointment need be decided as expeditiously as possible. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. Courts should not stretch the scheme for compassionate appointment by liberal interpretation on humanitarian grounds beyond permissible limits so as to allow compassionate appointment after a long time from the date of death. Either such appointments are made immediately or within a reasonable time of death and if appointment is not claimed for long time or made, it would be travesty of justice to compassionate appointment after a long time. 37. This has been followed in Canara Bank and others Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar and others (2015) 7 SCC 412. Court stressed upon aforesaid recent authorities that every appointment to public office must strictly adhere to the mandatory requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Compassionate appointment is an exception so as to provide employment to remove financial constraints suffered by bereft family of a government servant who die in harness and family has lost its bread earner. However, it was held that mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate appointment. 38. In the entirety of the facts of this case and discussion made above, I do not find any manifest error in the decision taken by Bank denying compassionate appointment to petitioner. 39. Dismissed. 40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ- A No. 9868 of 2019 Anurudh Kumar &Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. &Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Puneet Bhadauria Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. The Constitution of India Articles 14, 19 and 21 - Vires and Validity of Rule 222(D) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 as amended by the 26th Amendment - Direction for issuance of fitness certificate and permit in respect of the petitioners vehicles beyond 10 years up to 15 years as has been provided for the educational institutions bus/vehicle. 742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES The legislature in its wisdom has categorised the vehicles into two categories i.e. the educational/institutional vehicles and the other private/commercial or contract vehicles. This categorisation is for the reason that these two categories of vehicle form a separate class and cannot be equated. The use and running of educational institutional vehicles is very limited whereas other private/commercial or contract vehicles have a very wide and expensive use resulting in their speedy wear and tear. Therefore, the life of the two categories of vehicle has been provided differently. (Para 6) B. Reasonable Classification - The classification of the two categories of vehicles is a reasonable and valid classification. Accordingly, there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the period fixed for the running of the aforesaid two categories of vehicles. The vehicles owned and used by the petitioners are not the vehicles owned by the college/school or any educational institutions and, therefore, mere hiring of said vehicles by the educational institutions would not bring them within the purview of educational institutional buses as defined under the Act. Writ Petitions dismissed. (Para 7 and 8) (E-3) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Punet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioners who are drivers and probably the owners of buses are running them on contract basis for the purposes of carrying school children to and fro. According to them, their buses are being used solely for school purposes. 3. The petitioners are challenging the validity of Rule 222(D) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 as amended by the 26th Amendment and wants it to be declared ultra vires to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, they are seeking a direction that they should be issued fitness certificate and permit in respect of their vehicles beyond 10 years up to 15 years as has been provided for the educational institutions bus/vehicle. 4. It appears that for the educational institutions buses/vehicles, the rule provides that they can be used on road for 15 years from the date of their initial registration under a valid permit and fitness certificate whereas other diesel/CNG private bus/contract vehicles can only be used for a period of ten years from the date of initial registration. 5. Accordingly, the submission is that the period of use of the vehicles for 15 years and 10 years from the date of initial registration vis-a-vis the educational institutional buses and the other buses is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 6. The legislature in its wisdom has categorised the vehicles into two categories i.e. the educational/institutional vehicles and the other private/commercial or contract vehicles. This categorisation is for the reason that these two categories of vehicle form a separate class and cannot be equated. The use and running of educational institutional vehicles is very limited whereas other private/commercial or contract vehicles have a very wide and expensive use resulting in their speedy wear and tear. Therefore, the life of the two categories of vehicle has been provided differently. 7. In view of above, the classification of the two categories of 1 All. Raj Kishori Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 743 vehicles is a reasonable and valid classification. Accordingly, we do not find that there is any arbitrariness or discrimination in the period fixed for the running of the aforesaid two categories of vehicles. 8. The submission that the vehicles of the petitioners are being solely used under a contract for school purposes and as such are not different from educational institution vehicles/buses cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the educational institutional bus has been defined under Section 2 (11) of the Motor Vehicles Act which means an omnibus, which is owned by college, school or other educational institutions and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or the staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities. The vehicles owned and used by the petitioners are not the vehicles owned by the college/school or any educational institutions and, therefore, mere hiring of said vehicles by the educational institutions would not bring them within the purview of educational institutional buses as defined under the Act. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. ------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J. Writ-A No. 47122 of 2016 Raj Kishori Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. &Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sri Aisharya Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. The Constitution of India Article 226- U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and Article 351 A of the Civil Services Regulations - punishment provided under the Disciplinary Rules cannot be imposed upon the family members of the government servant since an incumbent ceases to be a government servant upon his death hence no penalty under the rules could have been imposed upon him. The deceased/employee was placed under suspension two days prior to his retirement and thereafter the employee died during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings - the alleged loss caused to the government, which was subject matter of departmental enquiry, was directed to be recovered from the heirs of the deceased employee from his post retiral dues. Held:- that By the impugned order, recovery was sought to be made from the post retiral dues from the legal heir for the misdemeanour and misconduct of the delinquent employee, which was not permissible in view of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules. Writ Petition Allowed. Case Law discussed/relied upon:- 1. Hirabai BhikAnr.ao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom 2. Neeraj v. Air India Ltd.,2017 XAD (Delhi) 245 3. Rajeshwari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(2) ADJ 643 (E-3) (Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)