ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Nagaich, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Zila Parishad, Aligarh and Sri Ansul Chaudhary, appears on behalf of respondent no. 5, Zila Panchayat, Mahamaya Nagar.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Late Sri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma was a permanent employee of Zila Parishad, Aligarh and was employed on the post of Vaccinator, who died on 10.12.1983 in harness. The petitioner, being the only son of Late Sri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, applied for compassionate appointment. Despite several representations being given, when no action has been taken the petitioner moved an application to the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 5.9.1988 on which a report has been sought. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner has been processed and on 19.5.1990 the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Zila Parishad, Aligarh. Pursuant to the appointment letter, the petitioner joined on 19.5.1990 and since then he is continuously working. On 14.7.1992, the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Aligarh has terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that vide Government Order No. 7532B-33-2-2-B (9) 90 dated 11.12.1991 it has been clarified that in case of death of the employees of Zila Parishad during the course of their service, for compassionate appointment to one member of the family, the Government Order shall be applicable w.e.f. 5.7.1984 while Sri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma died on 10.12.1983, therefore, the Government Order dated 5.7.1984 is not applicable and the services of the petitioner on compassionate ground cannot be approved. The order of the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Aligarh is being challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition was entertained on 31.7.1992 and an interim order has been passed staying the operation of the order dated 14.7.1992 and the petitioner has been permitted to work on the post of Clerk.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity has been given before passing the order. He, however, submitted that it is wrong to say that on the date of death the provision for compassionate appointment did not exist. A reference is made to the Government Order dated 21.12.1973, which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. He further submitted that in any view of the matter on the day when the petitioner's application has been processed and the petitioner has been appointed the Government Order for compassionate appointment was in force as per the Government Order dated 11.12.1991 which was enforced w.e.f. 5.7.1984. He placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hanif Uddin and others Vs. Chairman, Zila Parishad, Hamirpur and another, 1996 928 ALR 349.