# Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 230
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16616 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.R. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kumar-nagpal-v-state-of-haryana-39802
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-The
appropriate Government in the case of
employees of the Central Government in
the Central Government - the reference
in such cases by the State Government is
bad in law.

Held - Para 3

The
labour
Court
relied
upon
the
aforesaid definition, in my opinion rightly
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur
does not have jurisdiction as the State
Government has no jurisdiction to refer
the dispute under Section 4 K.
Case law relied:
2001 AIR- SCW P.2685
1999 Alld. law report P.735

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
230
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.1.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.R. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16616 of 2001
Anand Kumar

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, through its Secretary and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Somesh Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Compassionate
appointment-father died 30.5.94-claim
made after 8 years - Findings about
financial
conditions
recorded
most
soundful. Not entitled for appointment.

Held - Para 2

This
Tribunal
has
held
that
the
petitioner's financial condition is not bad
and hence it is not fit case for granting
compassionate
appointment.
The
Tribunal has referred to the family
pension etc. which the petitioner's family
is getting as well as the rent from
houses, as well as the plots in several
towns.
It
is
settled
law
that
compassionate
appointment
may
be
granted
only
when
the
financial
condition of the family is bad vide Umesh
Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana
(1994) 4 SCC 138, but in this case the
finding of fact is that it is not bad.
Moreover the petitioner's father died on
30.5.94 i.e., almost 8 years ago and
hence this is not a fit case for passing
any mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution since the purpose of giving
compassionate appointment is that there
is an immediate financial crisis in the
family, vide Haryana State Electricity
Board Vs. Naresh J.T. 1996 SC 542. The
writ petition is hence dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1994(4) SCC 138
J.T. 1996 S.C.-542

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioner's father was a
Senior
Divisional
Manager
in
the
Department of Telecommunication who
died
in
harness
on
30.5.94.
The
petitioner's mother made an application
that her son, the petitioner, should be
given an appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules vide Annexure 1. However
the application was rejected on 26.2.96
vide Annexure 4 in which it was stated
that
the
case
for
compassionate
appointment has been considered by a
High Power Committee and it has been
decided that the case of the petitioner is
not a fit one for appointment in relaxation
of the recruitment rules. Thereafter
representation dated 21.2.97 wa made
vide Annexure 5 but it was rejected on
15.1.98 vide Annexure 6. The petitioner
then
approached
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal which directed
the Chief General Manager to reconsider
the request of the applicant vide its order
Annexure 7. The petitioner subsequently
gave a representation dated 14.10.99 but it
was rejected on 20.1.2002 vide Annexure
8. The petitioner then approached the
Tribunal which dismissed his petition on
15.3.2001 vide Annexure 9. Hence this
writ petition is filed.

2. We have carefully perused the
impugned order of the Tribunal and find
no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has
held
that
the
petitioner's
financial
1All] Anand Kumar V. Union of India through its Secretary and others
231
condition is not bad and hence it is not a
fit case for granting compassionate
appointment. The Tribunal has referred to
the family pension etc. which the
petitioner's family is getting as well as the
rent from houses, as well as the plots in
several towns. It is settled law that
compassionate
appointment
may
be
granted only when the financial condition
of the family is bad, vide Umesh Kumar
Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4
SCC 138, but in this case the finding of
fact is that it is not bad. Moreover the
petitioner's father died on 30.5.94 i.e.
almost 8 years ago and hence this is not a
fit case for passing any mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution since the
purpose
of
giving
compassionate
appointment is that there is an immediate
financial crisis in the family, vide
Haryana State Electricity Board V.
Narseh J.T. 1996(2) S.C. 542. The writ
petition is hence dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5817 of 1997

Sheo Shankar

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Padia
Dr. R.G. Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-The
appropriate Government in the case of
employees of the Central Government in
the Central Government - the reference
in such cases by the State Government is
bad in law.

Held - Para 3

The
labour
Court
relied
upon
the
aforesaid definition, in my opinion rightly
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent-Labour Court Vth, Kanpur
does not have jurisdiction as the State
Government has no jurisdiction to refer
the dispute under Section 4 K.
Case law relied:
2001 AIR- SCW P.2685
1999 Alld. law report P.735

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was heard
by me on 3rd of January, 2002 and after
hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, I dismissed the writ petition for
reasons to be recorded later on. The
reasons for the dismissal of the aforesaid
writ petition are as under.

2. The facts which are not in dispute
are as follows. That petitioner's father
Ram Nath, who was an employee of
Central PWD, Kanpur and was posted as
Waterman, died while in service; that in
view of the circumstances after the death
of
petitioner's
father,
petition
was
appointed as a muster role employee on
compassionate ground; that while the
petitioner was working as muster role
employee,
the
petitioner's
mother,
namely, widow of deceased Ram Nath,
sought an employment under dying in
harness rules and she was appointed under
dying in harness rules with the employer
Central PWD, Central Region, Kanpur as
peon. As a consequence thereof the