# Ram Chaurasia v. State of U.P. reported

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34179 of 1994
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chaurasia-v-state-of-u-p-reported-41486
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Compassionate
appointmentcancellation on ground of non availability
of substantive post-offer given to work
on lower post-counter affidavit plea
taken the post on which appointment
made has been occupied by permanent
appointee-offer
for
appointment
on
lower post refused by petitioner-hence
not entitled for any relief-held-without
affording any opportunity-even after
reinstatement of permanent incumbentpetitioner
can
not
be
thrown
out-
compassionate
appointment-shall
be
treated as regular appointment for every
purposes-dismissal order quashed with
all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 9

The contention with regard to the status
of appointment of a compassionate
claimant is covered by the Division
Bench decision in the case of Yogendra
Ram Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. reported
in (2002) 5 AWC 3708. The petitioner,
therefore, could not have been thrown
out
of
employment
or
given
an
alternative employment against a lower
post.
Secondly,
the
said
order
of
termination
of
the
services
of
the
petitioner could not have been passed
without giving any notice or opportunity.
The third contention has also to be
accepted inasmuch as the writ petition
filed by Lala Ram has already been
allowed. Respondents had already filed
counter affidavits and after 16 years are
praying again for further time for which
there is no justification.

## Text

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATD: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34179 of 1994

Suresh Babu

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

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

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Compassionate
appointmentcancellation on ground of non availability
of substantive post-offer given to work
on lower post-counter affidavit plea
taken the post on which appointment
made has been occupied by permanent
appointee-offer
for
appointment
on
lower post refused by petitioner-hence
not entitled for any relief-held-without
affording any opportunity-even after
reinstatement of permanent incumbentpetitioner
can
not
be
thrown
out-
compassionate
appointment-shall
be
treated as regular appointment for every
purposes-dismissal order quashed with
all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 9

The contention with regard to the status
of appointment of a compassionate
claimant is covered by the Division
Bench decision in the case of Yogendra
Ram Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. reported
in (2002) 5 AWC 3708. The petitioner,
therefore, could not have been thrown
out
of
employment
or
given
an
alternative employment against a lower
post.
Secondly,
the
said
order
of
termination
of
the
services
of
the
petitioner could not have been passed
without giving any notice or opportunity.
The third contention has also to be
accepted inasmuch as the writ petition
filed by Lala Ram has already been
allowed. Respondents had already filed
counter affidavits and after 16 years are
praying again for further time for which
there is no justification.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel Sri S.K. Mishra who
prays that the respondents want further
two weeks' time to file a response to the
order dated 30.3.2010.

2. This matter is pending for the past
16 years and two counter affidavits have
been filed on behalf of the State, one by
Mr. Ghanshyam Singh which was served
on the learned counsel for the petitioner
on 2.12.1994 and second counter affidavit
sworn by Sripati Prasad which has been
served on the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 26.7.1995. In view of the
affidavits which have already been filed
on record, the only query made by the
Court on 30.3.2010 was with regard to the
judgment which has been brought on
record
through
the
supplementary
affidavit dated 4.5.2007 in the case of
Lala Ram Vs. State of U.P. & others
decided on 4.5.2007.

3. Learned Standing Counsel,
therefore, states that time may again be
granted for ascertaining the instructions
thereon.

4. In my opinion, the pendency of
this writ petition for the past 16 years and
the filing of two affidavits on behalf of
the respondents and time already having
1 All] Suresh Babu V. State of U.P. and others
371
been granted on 30th March, 2010, there
is no necessity of accepting the request of
the
learned
Standing
Counsel.
The
petitioner's counsel has brought on record
the judgment of this Court which may not
require
any
further
verification.
Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to
decide the case finally.

5. The petitioner was appointed
under the compassionate appointment
rules known as U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants of Government Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rule, 1974 as a Farm
Clerk on 30.11.1987 as his father Kishan
Singh died in harness while working as a
Reserve Warder in the District Jail,
Muzaffarnagar.
This
compassionate
appointment continued for about 7 years
when on 19th September, 1994 the
services of the petitioner were dispensed
with on the ground that the post against
which the petitioner had been appointed is
no longer available inasmuch as the same
had fallen vacant due to the promotion of
Lala Ram who has now been reverted to
the said post. The said order was
challenged and an interim order was
passed on 1.12.1994 that in case the post
is vacant the petitioner may be permitted
to continue on the post in question
inasmuch as Lala Ram had already filed a
writ petition and an interim order was
passed in his favour. Two counter
affidavits as indicated above have been
filed. For reasons best known to the
respondents both the counter affidavits
indicate the respondents helplessness in
continuing the petitioner on the post in
question on the ground that the post was
not available due to the reversion of Lala
Ram the earlier incumbent on the said
post. The second counter affidavit also
indicates that the petitioner was offered an
alternative employment as a Junior
Assistant keeping in view his status of a
compassionate
appointee
but
the
petitioner did not accept the request and
instead filed this writ petition.

6. Sri Padia, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the post which the
petitioner
was
offered
was
on
compassionate basis and it has been held
in a series of decisions of this Court that
an appointment on compassionate basis is
a permanent appointment which cannot be
terminated in the manner in which it has
been done by the respondents. He further
submits that even if Lala Ram had been
reverted back the respondents were duty
bound to appoint the petitioner against a
permanent
post.
Sri
Padia
further
contends that the impugned order was
passed without giving any notice or
opportunity to the petitioner and the same
is in violation of principles of natural
justice and thirdly once Lala Ram had
already filed a writ petition and an interim
order was passed by the Lucknow Bench
of this court there was no occasion to
terminate the services of the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand contends that the petitioner
cannot claim the same post, and he had
been offered an alternative employment
inasmuch as the post could not be filled
up due to the reversion of Lala Ram. In
rejoinder Sri Padia submitted that the
supplementary affidavit which has been
filed bringing on record the judgment in
the case of Lala Ram clearly indicates that
the writ petition filed by Lala Ram had
been allowed and the reversion has been
set aside. In such a situation the very basis
of the contention raised in the counter
affidavit vanishes.
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
8. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the affidavits.

9. The contention with regard to the
status of appointment of a compassionate
claimant is covered by the Division Bench
decision in the case of Yogendra Ram
Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2002) 5 AWC 3708. The petitioner,
therefore, could not have been thrown out
of employment or given an alternative
employment
against
a
lower
post.
Secondly, the said order of termination of
the services of the petitioner could not
have been passed without giving any
notice
or
opportunity.
The
third
contention has also to be accepted
inasmuch as the writ petition filed by Lala
Ram
has
already
been
allowed.
Respondents had already filed counter
affidavits and after 16 years are praying
again for further time for which there is
no justification.

10. Accordingly on all three counts
the writ petition has to succeed. The order
impugned
dated
19.9.1994
as
communicated to the petitioner vide letter
dated 6.10.1994 is quashed. Petitioner
shall be treated to have been continuing
on the post in question and he shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits.

11. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS.JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30231 of 2008

Baboo Khan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Varma
C.S.C.

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act
1976-Section
11
and
16-Writ
of
mandamus the State Government to
accept the amount of compensation
received earlier by the petitioner on
ground of his possession and the govt.
has
not
taken
actual
physical
possession-held-the moment on which
petitioner
received
80%
of
compensation-land deemed to be vested
with
government
free
from
all
encumbrances-now government can not
be compelled to received back said
compensation
and
handover
the
possession to the petitioner against
statutory provision-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 10, 11 &13

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act
provides that when the Collector has
made an award under Section 11, he
may take possession of the land, which
shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances.

In the present case before us, it is
admittedly
clear
that
80%
of
the
compensation has already been received
by the petitioner. In such circumstances,