# Rishabh Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 809
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-09-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46449 of 2007
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishabh-raj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41207
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226Compassionate
appointment-deceased
employee working as D.I.G. Karagar died
in harness- application to appoint her
minor son moved within 5 years- widow
offered appointment- but she did not
turn
up-after
completing
B.
Tech.
Education-son
claimed
parity
for
appointment on the post of Vishesh
Karyadhikari-when widow can survive
for more than 8 years- given better
education
and
living
standard-no
financial crisis exist- under rule no
provision
of
reservation
of
post
provided-
appointment
can
not
be
claimed as a matter of right.

Held: Para 11

Rule, 1974 given a legal right to the
family member of the deceased to
request a post to be reserved for minor
son
or
daughter
till
attaining
the
majority. Normally the application is to
be moved within five-years after the
death of the father, which was done in
the instance case by the mother but
decline to accept. She could not have
moved
another-application
for
appointing her son at the end of five
years limitation provided under the
Rules. If she had not applied for the job
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
then only the second application could
have been moved by the petitioner
within five years.

## Text

3 All] Rishabh Raj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
809
regularized
will
not
be
given
the
minimum of pay scale at all in view of the
aforesaid decisions.
For the reasons given above, this
special appeal is partly allowed. No order
as to costs.
S/d M. Katju, J.
S/d R.S.Tripathi, J.
27.4.2004"

12. In State of Punjab Vs
Savinderjit Kaur, 2004 (101) F.L.R. 592,
a three judge bench of the apex court
held: -

"even the doctrine of equal pay for
equal work would not apply where it has
not been established that duties and
functions of two categories of employees
are at par"

13. In this writ petition it is not the
argument of the petitioners that they are
not being paid minimum wages, which
are admissible to daily rated employees
notified by the appropriate Government.
Only parity is claimed in the pay scale,
which can only be paid to an employee
holding permanent post. In case the
petitioners are discharging the duties of a
regular employee they may approach to
the Labour Court for adjudication of the
disputed question of fact.

14. The judgments of the apex court
as well as of Division Bench of this Court
are binding upon this Bench. Thus, the
petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale
at par with the regular employees.

15. For the reasons stated above, this
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2007
I
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46449 of 2007

Rishabh Raj Singh

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

Counsel for the petitioner:
Sri. Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226Compassionate
appointment-deceased
employee working as D.I.G. Karagar died
in harness- application to appoint her
minor son moved within 5 years- widow
offered appointment- but she did not
turn
up-after
completing
B.
Tech.
Education-son
claimed
parity
for
appointment on the post of Vishesh
Karyadhikari-when widow can survive
for more than 8 years- given better
education
and
living
standard-no
financial crisis exist- under rule no
provision
of
reservation
of
post
provided-
appointment
can
not
be
claimed as a matter of right.

Held: Para 11

Rule, 1974 given a legal right to the
family member of the deceased to
request a post to be reserved for minor
son
or
daughter
till
attaining
the
majority. Normally the application is to
be moved within five-years after the
death of the father, which was done in
the instance case by the mother but
decline to accept. She could not have
moved
another-application
for
appointing her son at the end of five
years limitation provided under the
Rules. If she had not applied for the job
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
then only the second application could
have been moved by the petitioner
within five years.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari. J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner died on 18.5.2001 in Harness
while working on the post of Deputy
Inspector General Karagar, Allahabad.

3. The mother of the petitioner
moved an application dated 4.7.2001
before the respondent no. 2 requesting to
reserve
a
post
for
compassionate
appointment for her son, who is a minor
at that time.

4. Pursuant to the application dated
4.7.2001, the Additional Director General
(Administrative),
Karagar,
Prashasan
Avam Sudhar Sevayen, Uttar Pradesh, by
means of letter dated 28th July, 2001
asking to the mother of the petitioner
about her qualification and about the post
for which she was intending to apply.
Mother of the petitioner did not submit
any claim or request for appointment on
compassionate ground and according to
the petitioner she decided to look after her
family or whatever financial resources
were available.

5. On 21.2.2006, the mother of the
petitioner by a letter dated 28th July, 2001
proposed candidature of her selection for
appointment on compassionate ground on
the post of Vishesh Karyadhikari in the
pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (outside the
purview of Uttar Pradesh, Public Service
Commission) and application was moved
by the mother of the petitioner before
State of U.P. through Principal Secretary,
Karagar
Prashasan
Avam
Sudhar
Seyayen, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow
praying
for
compassionate
appointment of the petitioner, her son on
the
aforesaid
post
of
Vishesh
Karyadhikari considering the education
qualification
of
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner
is
B,
Tech
in
Biology
Technology and about of 22 years of age
according to his date of birth 17.8.1985.

6. It appears that the Director
General,
Karagar,
Prashasan
Avam
Sudhar Sevayen, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
offered the petitioner to face Hindi Typist
Test on 22.2.2007 for appointment on the
post of Kanishtha Sahaik/typist.

7. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the claim
of the petitioner for appointment on the
post of Vishesh Karyadhikari has not been
decided. This consumerates education
qualification and on the contrary he being
offered the post of typist. It is vehemently
urged as the father was the "Top
Proposed" petitioner should be offered the
post of Vishesh Karyadhikari in the pay
scale of 6500-10550.

8. Particularly in view of the fact
that
another
person
in
similar
circumstances i.e. son of late R.S.
Tripathi, Addl. Director General, Karagar
has been given the said post. It is alleged
that the petitioner cannot discriminated in
the matter of employment and parity
should be maintained. It is further urged
that Government of U.P. is not interfered
to decide the claim of the petitioner on the
post of Vishesh Karyaadhikari and on the
other hand is offering the petitioner to
face test for the post of typist, which is
quite irrproportional to the qualification
3 All] Smt. Kiran Devi V. State of U.P. and others
811
as well as to the "High Brass Hierarchy
late father of the petitioner" and as such
inaction regarding adjudication of the
claim of petitioner the respondent no. 1 is
illegal and violates the valuable rights of
the petitioner without any rhyme and
reason.

9. It is admitted fact that (1)
immediately after the death of the
petitioner's father, his mother moved an
application
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground, which later on she
declined and decided to carry on the
family with whatever resources (2) the
petitioner was a minor at the time of death
of his father as he has been educated by
his mother and at present he holds decree
of B. Tec. in Bio Technology (3) mother
able to sustained the family about more
than 5 years and has given education to
the petitioner. The daughter according to
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
major and she has not disclosed her age
appended as annexure no. 10 A to the writ
petition is sufficient to show that the
family of the deceased was not in indigent
circumstances.

10. It might be that in the case of Sri
R. S. Tripathi a vacancy was available for
appointment on the post of Vishesh
Karyadhikari, Manwadhikar Ayog at that
time and was offered. The appointment on
compassionate ground is not a legal right
of any member of the family of the
deceased. If the family is not old penury
and or not in indigent circumstances, the
other needy families of the deceased
employee may be considered. As stated
earlier, his mother offered for a job and
later on decline to accept the job because
she wanted her son to get employment on
compassionate
ground
and
for
this
purpose a request was also made to set
aside
the
post
reserved
for
the
appointment of the petitioner. In my
opinion there is no such reason in the U.
P. Dependent of Government Servant.

11. Rule, 1974 given a legal right to
the family member of the deceased to
request a post to be reserved for minor
son or daughter till attaining the majority.
Normally the application is to be moved
within five-years after the death of the
father, which was done in the instance
case by the mother but decline to accept.
She could not have moved anotherapplication for appointing her son at the
end of five years limitation provided
under the Rules. If she had not applied for
the job then only the second application
could have been moved by the petitioner
within five years.

12. For the reason stated above, this
court is not inclined to interfere in the
matter.

The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.K. MITTAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 23597 of
2007

Smt. Kiran Devi

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mithilesh Kumar Gupta