TITLE: ARPIT SHUKLA V. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
CITATION: WRIT – A NO. – 19344 OF 2023
DECIDED ON: 30 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE NEERAJ TIWARI
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Arpit Shukla, filed a writ case with the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner’s father, a Class-IV employee of Nagar Palika Parishad in Faridpur, Bareilly, passed away on 31.7.2022. . Arpit Shukla then submitted a Class-III compassionate dismissal application, mentioning the death of his father. Nevertheless, the application was turned down, and the reason for the denial was stated in a letter dated 26.9.2023, which claimed that there was not a Class-III position available. In accordance with the Dying-In-Harness Scheme, the petitioner requested that this refusal be overturned and that he be appointed to the position of Clerk (Class-III).
Issues Involved
The primary issue is the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Class-III post on compassionate grounds despite the unavailability of such a vacancy.
Legal Provisions
Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Relevant Government Orders, particularly one dated 17.6.2014.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The petitioner argued that he is entitled to a Class-III post on humanitarian grounds in accordance with Rule 5 and pertinent legal precedents, highlighting the necessity of creating supernumerary posts as needed. Conversely, the respondents said that the petitioner is not inherently entitled to a certain position and that the appointing authority has the final say in the matter, with their claims bolstered by previous rulings and official directives. The Court thoroughly examined earlier rulings, such as Sushma Gosain v. Union of India and Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P., as well as Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974. The Court stressed the Apex Court’s ruling that “suitable employment” must correspond with the position that the dead employee occupied, not with the dependent’s more advanced education. In this regard, the petitioner was offered a Class-IV position, which he turned down since he was more qualified for a Class-III one, the Court stated. The Court determined that the petitioner is not eligible for a Class-III post on compassionate grounds based on these legal precepts. The petitioner was offered the opportunity to apply for a Class-IV position, according to the applicable rules and legislation, but the writ petition was denied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
