Allahabad High Court High Court

Mukesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. & Others on 20 July, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. & Others on 20 July, 2010
                                                                     1

                                                          Court No.28
          Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10128 of 2009
                             Mukesh Chandra
                                    Vs.
                        State of U.P. & Ors.


Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ
petition is being finally decided under the Rules of the Court.

2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that despite of the
direction issued by the higher authorities, the respondent no.4 has
not appointed the petitioner under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants
of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The petitioner’s father late
Sone Lal Sagar was a class IV employee in the office of respondent
no.4 and died on 2nd October, 2006 in harness pursuant whereto
the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in
accordance with law.

3. From the record it appears that the respondent no.2, the
Director of Agriculture has already issued an order on 9th May,
2007 directing the respondent No.4 to give an appointment to the
petitioner on compassionate basis but the respondent No.4, it
appears, has not taken any action till date. Despite of time having
been granted to the respondents, and more than one and a half
years has passed but the official respondents have not chosen to
file counter affidavit. In the circumstances, laxity and inaction on
the part of the respondent No.4 is writ large. The learned Standing
Counsel could give no valid reason for not issue a direction to the
respondent no.4 as prayed by the petitioner.

4. The writ petition is allowed. The competent authority is
directed to take appropriate steps in respect to the appointment of
the petitioner in accordance with the rules pursuant to the Director
of Agriculture’s letter dated 9th May, 2007 and pass appropriate
2

order within 15 days from the date of communication of certified
copy of this order. Since here is a case where laxity and inaction
on the part of the respondent no.4 is writ large and has not been
explained, the petitioner is also entitled to cost which is quantified
to Rs.15,000/- against the respondent no.4, who shall pay the
same to the petitioner within two months from the date of service
of certified copy of order.

Dt.20.07.2010
KA