# Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 331
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-02
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2551 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47821
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Courts
cannot
order
appointment on compassionate grounds
dehors the provisions of the statutory
regulations and instructions and that
hardship of a candidate does not entitle
him to compassionate appointment dehors
the Statutory Provisions. Also, it is settled
law that norms prevailing on the date of
consideration of the appointment would
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be the basis of considering claim for
compassionate appointment. (Para 10)

Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable
to the U.P. St. Agro Industrial Corporation. Extra
ordinary jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised by this
Court in the absence of any scheme for
compassionate appointment prevalent in the
respondents Corporation and no mandamus can
be issued to the U.P. St. Agro Industrial
Corporation
to
grant
compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioners therein.
(Para 12, 13, 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331

7. Smt. Subhash Rathi, learned
counsel for the appellant while assailing the
order of the learned Single Judge submits
that the learned Single Judge fell in error in
directing the petitioner to be absorbed from
the date of issuance of the order dated
28.3.2001 inasmuch as the post in question
came to be created only under orders of His
Excellency the Governor of the State of
U.P., dated 30.1.2015. According to her,
since the post was not available on
28.3.2001, as it was created only on
30.1.2015
against
which
the
petitioner/respondent was appointed on
11.2.2015, the services of the petitioner
could not be regularized from 28.3.2001
along with all service benefits and in such
view of the matter, the order of the learned
Single Judge is liable to be set side or
suitably modified.

8. In the opinion of the Court, the
submission advanced by Smt. Rathi on
behalf of the appellants has substance.
Testing the submissions in the light of the
Circular dated 28.3.2001 which refers to
the Government Order dated 7.5.1999 filed
as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, we find
that the Circular and the Government Order
presupposes the existence of a post. As per
the Government Order dated 7.5.1999 the
post is to be identified and the reservation
applied. In the event any post remains
unfilled, the same is permitted to be carried
over to the next selection. Admittedly, the
post of Cane Weaver/Chair Weaver has
been created on 30.1.2015 under orders of
His Excellency the Governor of the State of
U.P. and the petitioner/respondent has been
appointed on 11.2.2015. The post of Cane
Weaver/Chair Weaver has thus come in
existence only in the year 2015 pursuant to
the
proposal
envisaged
under
the
Government Order dated 7.5.1999 and
28.3.2001. In such view of the matter, we
are of the opinion that the learned Single
Judge fell in error in directing that the
petitioner shall be considered to be
absorbed from the date of issuance of the
order dated 28.3.2001 and shall be entitled
to all the benefits admissible to a regular
employee and the order of the learned
Single Judge is liable to be modified.

9. Accordingly, we modify the order
impugned and direct that the petitioner
shall be considered to be absorbed from the
date of his appointment i.e. 11.2.2015 and
shall be entitled to all the benefits
admissible to a regular employee. The intra
court appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 331
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 2551 of 2022

Jitendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shri Kant Shukla

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Courts
cannot
order
appointment on compassionate grounds
dehors the provisions of the statutory
regulations and instructions and that
hardship of a candidate does not entitle
him to compassionate appointment dehors
the Statutory Provisions. Also, it is settled
law that norms prevailing on the date of
consideration of the appointment would
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be the basis of considering claim for
compassionate appointment. (Para 10)

Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable
to the U.P. St. Agro Industrial Corporation. Extra
ordinary jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised by this
Court in the absence of any scheme for
compassionate appointment prevalent in the
respondents Corporation and no mandamus can
be issued to the U.P. St. Agro Industrial
Corporation
to
grant
compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioners therein.
(Para 12, 13, 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pankaj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
8009 of 2008, decided on 21.12.2012 (Para 7)

2. Gaurav Singh Chauhan Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ- A No. 70690 of 2006, decided on
08.01.2013 (Para 7)

3. L.I.C. Vs Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, 1994
(2) SCC 718 (Para 10)

4. N.C. Santosh Vs St. of Karn., 2020 (7) SCC
617 (Para 11)

5. Gajendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No. 3954 of 2011 (Para 12)

6. Prem Pal Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ Petition
No. 54673 of 2005 (Para 12)

7. Jagdish Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Special
Appeal No. 1737 of 2011 (Para 13)

Present petition assails orders dated
07.09.2019 and 22.09.2021, passed by
Managing Director, U.P. St. Agro Industrial
Corporation Ltd., Lucknow.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Shri Kant Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to
4.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 07.09.2019
passed by the respondent no. 2 and also the
order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the
respondent no. 2, in so far as it relates to
the petitioner. He has also prayed for a writ
of mandamus to the respondents to produce
the record of the 146th meeting of the
Board of Directors dated 30.03.2000 and
set
aside
the
ban
imposed
on
compassionate appointment and to direct
the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment
under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

3. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that father of the
petitioner late Mohar Singh died in harness
while working on the post of Sales Officer
in Maudaha, Chitrakoot Dham, Division
Banda on 27.05.2019. The petitioner is post
graduate from Rohilkhand University and
is also Diploma holder in Software
Technical from Private Institute. He being
eligible for appointment on compassionate
ground had filed an application for the
same
on
19.06.2019.
In
the
said
application, the financial hardships being
faced by the petitioner and also his family
members is mentioned. After completing
all
formalities
for
compassionate
appointment, when no decision was taken
thereon, the mother of the petitioner filed
Writ Petition No. 17923 of 2019 which was
disposed of by this Court on 16.11.2019
directing the mother of the petitioner to file
a representation which should be decided
by the authorities concerned by means of a
reasoned and speaking order. The mother
of
the
petitioner
Smt. Savitri
Devi
thereafter made a fresh representation and
when no heed was paid, she filed a
11 All. Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
Contempt Application No. 3130 of 2021.
After such Contempt Application was filed,
the case of the petitioner had been rejected
by the order dated 22.09.2021 saying that
in terms of Government Order dated
22.01.2000, the scheme for compassionate
appointment is not applicable to U.P. State
of Agro Industrial Corporation.

4. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in
pursuance of Government Order dated
22.01.2000 some meeting was held by the
Board of Directors on 30.03.2000 details of
which have not been given to the petitioner,
despite his repeated requests.

5. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel
for the respondents has relied upon his
counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated
that by means of Government Order issued
by
the
Competent
Authority
dated
22.01.2000, the Scheme for compassionate
appointment was withdrawn in so far as the
U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation was
concerned it was running into huge losses.

6. In pursuance of such Government
Order, the Board of Directors in their 146th
meeting held on 30.03.2000 by Agenda No.
6 decided to do away with the Scheme of
compassionate appointment.

7. The counsel for the respondents
also placed reliance upon by orders
passed by this Court in Writ A No. 8009
of 2008 (Pankaj Singh versus State of
U.P. and others) and in Writ A No.
70690 of 2006 (Gaurav Singh Chauhan
versus State of U.P. and Others) decided
on
21.12.2012
and
08.01.2013
respectively, wherein the Court took note
of
the
Government
Order
dated
22.01.2000
and
the
consequential
Resolution
of
the
Board
dated
30.03.2000.

8. The counsel for the petitioner on
the
other
hand
has
opposed
such
submissions.
According
to
him,
the
petitioner's father died on 24.02.1999 and
therefore, the Government Order dated
22.01.2000 shall not have retrospective
operation.

9.

Having
considered
the
submissions made by the counsel for the
parties at bar, this Court has to consider
the question as to "whether sitting in
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India this
Court can force the respondents to act
against the law; or issue a writ of
mandamus to grant appointment to the
petitioner on compassionate ground in
the absence of any scheme for such
compassionate
appointment
being
prevalent case of the respondents?"

10. The SC in the case of Life
Insurance
Corporation
vs.
Asha
Ramchandra Ambekar 1994 (2) SCC
718 has held that courts cannot order
appointment on compassionate grounds
dehors the provisions of the statutory
regulations and instructions and that
hardship of a candidate does not entitle
him
to
compassionate
appointment
dehors the Statutory Provisions. Also, it
is settled law that norms prevailing on
the
date
of
consideration
of
the
appointment would be the basis of
considering claim for compassionate
appointment.

11. Such law has been reiterated by
the SC in N.C. Santhosh versus State of
Karnataka 2020 (7) SCC 617.
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. This Court in Writ A No. 3954 of
2011 (Gajendra Singh versus State of U.P.
and Others) and in Writ Petition No. 54673
of 2005 (Prem Pal versus State of U.P. and
others) as also in the case of Pankaj Singh
(Supra) and Gaurav Sngh Chauhan (Supra)
has considered the provisions of Government
Order dated 22.01.2000 which was issued
withdrawing the scheme of Compassionate
Appointment on the ground of financial
hardship faced by the U.P. State Agro
Industrial Corporation. The Court has also
considered the Resolution passed in the 146th
meeting of Board of Directors. The Court
came to the conclusion that in the absence of
any scheme for compassionate appointment
no mandamus can be issued to the U.P. State
Agro
Industrial
Corporation
to
grant
compassionate appointment to the writ
petitioners therein.

13. This Court in Special Appeal No.
1737 of 2011 (Jagdish Kumar versus State
of U.P. and Others) has also held that
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not
applicable to the U.P. State Agro Industrial
Corporation.

14. This Court is of the considered
opinion that extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot be exercised by this Court directing
the respondents to give compassionate
appointment to the petitioner in the absence
of any scheme prevalent in the respondents
Corporation.

15. The writ petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 334
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Writ-A No. 8525 of 2022

Anand Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, Sri H.R. Mishra (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jai Bahadur Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Co-operative
Societies
Employees'
Service
Regulations, 1975 - Reg. 84(1) & 85(x)
-
Suspension
-
ReinSt.ment
with
punishment of stoppage of 3 increments
- Appeal against punishment was filed
before the Registrar, not before the
Board - Maintainability - Held, the
punishment that was imposed, was a
minor penalty and the petitioner ought
to have approached the Board - Since
withholding
of
increments
is
a
punishment mentioned under Sub-clause
(b) of Regulation No. 84, it is a minor
penalty and the petitioner should have
approached the Board. He wrongly filed
an appeal before the Registrar/Joint
Registrar/Deputy Registrar. The appeal
filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2021
shall be treated as non-est. (Para 19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1.
Committee
of
Management,
Krishna
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors.; 2022 (3) ADJ 110
2. Kiran Singh & ors. Vs Chaman Paswan &
ors.; (1955) 1 SCR 117
3. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Ltd.; (2019) 17 SCC 82
4. Zuari Cement Ltd. Vs Regional Director,
Employees'
St.
Insurance
Corporation,
Hyderabad & ors. (2015) 7 SCC 690
5. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43584 of 2007;
Nand Kishor Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
14.09.2007