# Komal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15854 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/komal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48731
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Employment-fair price shop
agent-compassionate
appointmentrejection-challenged-petitioners
claims
dependency on her grandfather, during his
lifetime-she
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate appointment to the fair
price shop agency held by the deceasedAs per definition of family in Clause IV
(10) of the Government Order, petitioner
is neither included under any of the
specific relationship nor she pleaded any
special fact either before the authority or
the Court-Also the G.O. dated 05.08.2019
has not been challenged-Once, policy is
not shown to include a grandchild in
definition of family of a fair price shop
agent, that rule may never arise on
strength of indulgence granted by CourtHence, no substance in claim of the
petitioner.(Para 1 to 14)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no.2 shall pay to the petitioner
by account payee cheque or bank draft.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 15854 of 2022

Komal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Employment-fair price shop
agent-compassionate
appointmentrejection-challenged-petitioners
claims
dependency on her grandfather, during his
lifetime-she
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate appointment to the fair
price shop agency held by the deceasedAs per definition of family in Clause IV
(10) of the Government Order, petitioner
is neither included under any of the
specific relationship nor she pleaded any
special fact either before the authority or
the Court-Also the G.O. dated 05.08.2019
has not been challenged-Once, policy is
not shown to include a grandchild in
definition of family of a fair price shop
agent, that rule may never arise on
strength of indulgence granted by CourtHence, no substance in claim of the
petitioner.(Para 1 to 14)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ashok Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Misc.
Single No. 2899 of 2015
2. Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Misc.
Single No. 13015 of 2020

3. Akansha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.Writ C No.
32296 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

1.

Heard
Shri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and Shri Rajesh Khanna, learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Present writ petition has been filed
to quash the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by
respondent no.3/ District Supply Officer,
Prayagraj,
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application to grant her compassionate
appointment, as fair price shop agent at
Prakhand-1,
Nayapura,
Stanley
Road,
Prayagraj.

3. Undisputedly, the petitioner's grand
father namely Ram Naresh was the fair
price shop agent at the above described
location. It is the petitioner's case that the
said Ram Naresh ran the fair price shop
without any complaint till his death on
23.3.2019. He was survived by his three
sons - Uma Shanker (petitioner's father),
Shiv Shanker and Roop Chand and, two
married daughters - Smt. Abhilasha and
Smt. Kamlesh. According to the petitioner,
she has two brothers namely - Vishal and
Avinash and, one sister namely Smt. Ruchi.

4. In these circumstances, the
petitioner claims dependency on her grand
father, during his lifetime. Accordingly, she
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate
appointment re the fair price shop agency
held by the deceased Ram Naresh, in his
place. Reliance has been placed on three
decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar
8 All. Komal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
159
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No.
2899 of 2015, decided on 20.7.2016; Sunil
Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020, decided
on 3.9.2020 and; Akansha Singh Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., Writ - C No. 32296 of
2021, decided on 4.12.2021.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ
petition. He would submit, family of a fair
price dealer has been described in Clause
IV(10) of the Government Order dated
5.8.2019. It reads:

7. Relying on that definition, it has been
submitted, petitioner is a grand-daughter of
the deceased fair price shop agent Ram
Naresh. She is neither included under any of
the specific relationships included (as noted
above), nor she has shown herself to be
wholly dependent on the deceased Ram
Naresh as would entitle her to claim grant of
compassionate appointment.

"यदि दिसी नगरीय क्षेत्र िा उदित
िर दिक्रेता अथिा उसिे पररिार िे सिस्य,
सभासि या अध्यक्ष िा िुनाि जीत जाता है
तो उसिे अथिा उसिे पररिार िे सिस्य िे
नाम िल रही उदित िर िुिान िा अनुबन्ध
उसे तत्काल समदपित िरना होना अन्यथा
प्रश्नगत अनुबन्ध दनरस्त घोदित िर दिया
जायेगा। पररिार िी पररभािा िही होगी, जो
उ०प्र० आिश्यििस्तु (दितरण िे दिदनयमन
िा दनयंत्रण) आिेश 2016 में िी गयी है-
•
पररिार िा मुखिया।
•
पदत/पत्नी दिदिि रूप से
अपनाये गये ित्ति सन्तान सदहत.
•
सन्तान जो पररिार िे
मुखिया पर पूणि रूप से आदित हो।
•
अदििादहत, दिदिि रूप से
पृथि और दिििा बेटी, और
•
पररिार िे मुखिया पर पूणि
रूप से आदित माता/दपता।"

8. With respect to the decisions relied
by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has
been submitted, those are decisions on
facts. They do not lay down the law.
Therefore, they have no binding efficacy.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the record,
the facts are undisputed. The petitioner is
the grand-daughter of the deceased fair
price shop agent Ram Naresh. The
petitioner's father Uma Shankar is alive.
Therefore, considering societal practice and
behaviour, that fortunate circumstance itself
strongly suggests existence of dependency
of the petitioner on her father, if at all. It is
especially so- in view of inclusion of
unmarried or legally separated or widowed
daughter as a dependent of her father (not
grandfather) under Clause IV(10) of the
Government Order dated 5.8.2019. Also,
the definition of the family given in Clause
IV(10) of the Government Order dated
5.8.2019 has not been challenged. Beyond
that relations - at one level up and below
are included in the definition of family
along with spouse of the fair price shop
agent. No special fact was pleaded either
before the authority or before this Court, by
the petitioner, to claim her dependency on
her grand-father Ram Naresh, during the
lifetime of her father.

10. What survives for consideration is
whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of
fair price shop agency on the strength of
three decisions of this Court, referred to
above. Here, it may be noted, in Ashok
Kumar (supra), fair price shop agent died
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 12.3.2014. Petitioner Ashok Kumar
was his grandson. However, it was his
specific case noted in paragraph 3 (of the
order dated 20.7.2016 passed in that case),
that the father of Ashok Kumar had predeceased his father. Similarly, in Sunil
Kumar Yadav (supra), in paragraph 3 of
the order dated 3.9.2020, it was specifically
recorded, Hausila Prasad (father of that
petitioner) had pre-deceased his father
Sitaram Yadav, the duly appointed fair price
shop agent in that case. In Akansha Singh
(supra), again, father of that petitioner had
pre-deceased his father. In paragraph 3 of
that report, it has been noted, the grand
father of the petitioner Dharam Pal Singh
died on 31.12.2020. He was survived by
that petitioner's grand mother, mother and
sister (but not father).

11. Thus, in all cases, relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, father of
all those petitioners had pre-deceased their
father, who happened to be the deceased
fair price shop agent. Thus, the question
whether those petitioners were dependent
on their respective father, on the date of
their claim being made, did not arise. In
fact, each of those petitioners claimed to be
wholly dependent on their grand father, for
the reason of prior death of their own
father.

12. Even otherwise, it is not for the
Court to legislate or frame policy decisions.
Once, the policy is not shown to include a
grandchild in the definition of family of a
fair price shop agent, that rule (in law) may
never arise on the strength of indulgence
granted by the Court in individual facts of a
case.

13. On account of the above, the
decisions relied are found to be wholly
distinguishable.There is no substance in the
claim of the petitioner. The same has been
rightly rejected.

14. Writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 18359 of 2022

Raje Lal Uttam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Himanshu Raghav Pandey, Sri Ram
Kishore Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hari Narayan Singh, Sri S.K.
Pandey, Sri S.N. Pandey

A. Civil Law-U.P. Revenue Code, 2006Sections 67& 67(A)- Encroachment of public
land-petitioner
was
found
to
be
illegal
encroachment over the disputed parcels of landPetitioner invoked the protection of 67(A) of the
Code on the footing that his residential house
was erected 55 years ago and that a residential
patta was granted to his predecessors.-Court
below neglected to consider the facts-Courts in
proceedings under section 67 of Code are under
obligation of law to decide the eligibility of the
notice for protection under Section 67(A) of the
Code-Failure of courts below to enquire into the
validity of the defence of the petitioner has
resulted into a miscarriage of justice-Impugned
order set aside.(Para 1 to 22)

B. Section 67(A) of the Code confers rights on
certain people who have encroached upon
public land. The person who seeks protection of