Rina vs State Of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 913

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 913

RAJAN ROY
Rina – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vinod Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent: Ravi Singh

JUDGMENT :

1. There is no need to call for a counter affidavit in the matter as the facts as stated in the impugned order, if they are taken on their face value, even then the same cannot sustain.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have been heard.

3. The petitioner filed an application seeking compassionate appointment consequent to the death of her mother, namely, Vimla, who died on 11.06.2018. Annexure-3 is the death certificate mentioning the date of death of Vimla as 11.06.2018. The claim of the petitioner has been denied by relying upon Rule 5 (1) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 on the ground that husband of late Vimla was employed as Sweeper under UPSRTC, therefore, in view of the exception carved out in the said Rule, the petitioner is not entitle to compassionate appointment. Though the said Rules are applicable to Government Servants, but, it appears that they have been applied in Nagar Nigam also as this is the Rule which is referred in the impugned order. Rule 5 reads as under:

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.-(1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document