# Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 80
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52065 of 2002
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-40075
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
recruitment
of
dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules
1974
Rule
5
(1)
(3)
-
Compassionate
appointment
claimed
after five years after attaining the age of
majority the was already there the
purpose of compassionate appointment
to provide immediate relief to the family
of deceased employee- but not as a right
of reservation held- authorities rightly
rejected
the
claim-
warrant
no
interference.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
81
Case law discussed:
W.P. 6560 of 2000 decided on 26.3.01
AIR 2000 SC-2782

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
of the State to promulgate the impugned
Ordinance under Entries 56 and 57 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution.
Case law discussed:
2000 AL J 2627
W.P. no. 1025 of 2001 decided on 10.9.2002

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

1. The petitioners have challenged
the constitutional validity of U.P. Motor
Vehicles
Taxation
(Amendment)
Ordinance 2002 (U.P. Ordinance no. 19
of 2002)

We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties.

2. Copy of the impugned Ordinance
is Annexure 5 to the writ petition and we
have carefully perused the same.

3. It may be stated that an Ordinance
is on the same legal footing as an Act of
the legislature vide Article 213 (2) of the
Constitution Hence unless it is shown that
it is violative of some provision of the
Constitution, it cannot be struck down.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to satisfy us that the
impugned
ordinance
violated
any
provision of the Constitution. There is a
presumption in favour of constitutional
validity of an Act.

4. In H.C. Misra Vs State of U.P.
C.M. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (tax)
decided on 10.9.2002 the imposition of
additional tax has been upheld. In H.C.
Misra's case (Supra) it was observed by
the Division Bench:

"As a matter of fact even if it be
assumed that the tax liability under the
new Act has increased that by itself would
be no ground to hold that the legislation
has lost its regulatory and compensatory
character."

5. We are in respectful agreement
with
the
aforesaid
division
Bench
decision. There is legislative competence
in the Governor of the State to promulgate
the impugned Ordinance under Entries 56
and 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution.

6. We find no unconstitutionality in
the impugned Ordinance. The petition is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 14TH,
2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52065 of 2002

Santosh Kumar

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
recruitment
of
dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules
1974
Rule
5
(1)
(3)
-
Compassionate
appointment
claimed
after five years after attaining the age of
majority the was already there the
purpose of compassionate appointment
to provide immediate relief to the family
of deceased employee- but not as a right
of reservation held- authorities rightly
rejected
the
claim-
warrant
no
interference.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
81
Case law discussed:
W.P. 6560 of 2000 decided on 26.3.01
AIR 2000 SC-2782

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar J.)

1. The petitioner, Santosh Kumar,
approached this Court prior to the filing
of the present writ petition by means of
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 51615 of 2000,
Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, which has been finally disposed of
by this Court vide order dated 5th
December, 2000, a copy of which has
been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ
petition, wherein direction has been
issued by this Court directing the
respondent to decide the petitioner's
representation
regarding
appointment
under
the
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants of Government Servants
dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had filed the earlier writ petition relying
upon the decision reported in (2000)
1U.P.L.B.E.C.-415 Pushpendra Singh
vs. Regional Manager U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Aligarh and
another; and (2000) 2 UPLBEC-196,
Manoj Kumar saxena Vs. District
Magistrate Bareilly and others. This
Court disposed of the aforesaid writ
petition with the following direction:

"The writ petition is finally disposed
of with the direction that the concerned
departmental authorities shall decide the
pending application of the petitioner for
appointment and shall pass appropriate
speaking order on the pending application
of the petitioner under the Rules aforesaid
taking into consideration the decisions
aforesaid. A copy of the decisions
aforesaid shall be supplied by the
petitioner's counsel along with a certified
copy of this order to the concerned
respondent.

It is made clear that this court has not
judged or viewed the controversy on
merits and the respondent concerned shall
be at liberty to take his own view in the
matter."

3. The facts leading to the filing of
the aforesaid writ petition are that the
petitioner's father was employed as Cook
with the respondents, who died due to
illness on 16th November, 1989 while he
was in service leaving behind his widow
and five minor children including the
petitioner. At the time of death of the
petitioner's father, the age of the petitioner
was 13 years and he was minor. On
attaining the age of majority, he applied
for appointment as class iv employee
under
the
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants of Government Servants
dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on 31st
December, 1994 i.e. after more than five
years after the death of his father. It is this
application, which according to the
petitioner's allegations in the earlier writ
petition, remain pending, which, as stated,
was directed to be decided by this court in
the earlier Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
51615 of 2000.

4. The respondents have now
decided the aforesaid application of the
petitioner by the order dated 19th
February, 2002 which is an order passed
by the Joint Secretary of the Government
of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the petitioner's
application for appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules was rejected on
the ground that according to Rule 5 (1)(3)
of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
the application for appointment must be
made within a period of five years from
the date of death of the concerned
employee, though according to the
aforesaid Rules, power of relaxation is
also there, but the petitioner's application
was rejected as the same was filed beyond
the period of five years from the date of
death of his father and no case has been
made out for relaxation and, therefore, the
application of the petitioner was rejected.

5. This direction, as stated above,
was passed by the Joint Secretary
addressed
to
the
Deputy
Inspector
General of Police (Establishment), U.P.,
Allahabad and the Commandant 34
P.A.C.
Battalion, Varanasi and the
consequential order was passed by the
Commandant,
4
P.A.C.
Battalion,
Varanasi on 5th October, 2002 rejecting
the
petitioner's
application
for
appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has
relied upon the decision of the learned
single Judge of this Court passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition 6560 of 2000 decided
on 26th March, 2001, Paravti Devi W/o
late Sri Nandu Ram Vs State of U.P. and
others, which petition was filed by the
wife of the deceased employee, which
was ultimately dismissed by this Court as
not pressed in view of the statement made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner at
Bar. Learned Standing Counsel has
further relied upon the decision reported
in A.I.R. 2000, Supreme Court -2782,
Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
others. Paragraph 3 of the said judgment
of the apex Court is relevant which is
being quoted below:

"We are unable to agree with the
submissions of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner. This Court has held in a
number of cases that compassionate
appointment is intended to enable the
family of the deceased employee to tide
over sudden crisis resulting due to death
of the bread earner who has left the family
in penury and without any means of
livelihood. In fact such a view has been
expressed in the very decision cited by the
petitioner in Director of Education V.
Pushpendra Kumar Supra. It is also
significant to notice that on the date when
the first application was made by the
petitioner on 2.6.88, the petitioner was a
minor
and
was
not
eligible
for
appointment. This is conceded by the
petitioner. There cannot be reservation of
a vacancy till such time as the petitioner
becomes a major after a number of years,
unless there is some specific provisions.
The
very
basis
of
compassionate
appointment is to see that the family gets
immediate relief."

7. In view of what has been said by
the apex Court with regard to appointment
under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules
and in view of the reasons given in the
impugned order rejecting the petitioner's
application,
for
compassionate
appointment, the order impugned in the
present writ petition does not warrant any
interference by this Court in exercise of
its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

8. This writ petition, therefore, being
devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed. There is no order
as to costs.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Udai Veer Singh Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others
83
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 934 of 2003

Udai Veer Singh Yadav and others

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sudhir Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Act 226 Validity of
Certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan Prayag held certificate is not
recognized after 1967 hence no right can
be claimed.

Held- Para 3

In Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical
practitioners vs. Director of Health 1997
(11) SCC 687 it was held that the
certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is
not recognized after 1967. Hence the
petitioners have no right to do medical
practice
on
the
basis
of
the
said
certificate.
Case law discussed:
1997 (ii) SCC 687

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

1. We have heard learned Counsel
for the parties.

2. The petitioner held certificates
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag,
and they claim that they have the right to
practice as medical practitioners on the
strength of these certificates. They have
prayed for a mandamus directing the
respondents not to interfere with their
peaceful practice as medical practitioners.

3. In Delhi Pradesh Registered
Medical practitioners vs. Director of
Health 1997 (11) SCC 687 it was held
that the certificate of Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is not recognized after 1967.
Hence the petitioners have no right to do
medical practice on the basis of the said
certificate.

4. Following the aforesaid decision
of the Supreme Court this petition is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7857 of 2002

Shambhoo Nath Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
District
Asstt.
Registrar
Cooperative
Societies, U.P., Jaunpur and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Sahkari Sangh Kosh Niyamavali -1982-
Rule 18 Age of retirement of the
employees
of
collection
branch
of
cooperative Department- Rule provides-
rule applicable to the Govt. Employees
shall be applicable under fundamental
rule 56 (3) age of retirement provides 60