AKHILESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Facts of the case are that late Manoj Kumar, the brother of the petitioner, was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Jal Nigam, who expired on 13.1.2010, while he was posted in Jal Nigam Corporation. It is alleged that after the death of the mother of the petitioner Smt. Prabhawati Devi, the father of the petitioner married again with one Radhika in the year 1998 and started living separately from late Manoj Kumar (brother of the petitioner), Akhilesh Kumar (petitioner) and his younger brother Amit Kumar. It para 18 and 19 of the petition it has been categorically stated that from his second wife the father of the petitioner Chhote Lal also has three daughters aged about 9 years, 13 years and 14 years and he is maintaining his second wife and three daughters only. Since the petitioner and his younger brother Amit Kumar were financial dependent on their brother late Manoj Kumar as such after his death an application dated 5.5.2011 was filed by the petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the petition. The papers were forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Division Office Pratapgarh to the Superintendent Engineer at Allahabad, which in turn, were further forwarded by the Superintendent Engineer to the Chief Engineer, Jal Nigam Lucknow. It is also on record that a communication dated 11.7.2011 was issued by the Chief Engineer Lucknow to the Executive Engineer Allahabad to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Dying In Harness Amendment Rules 2001, a copy whereof is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Further correspondence amongst the respondent authorities has also been placed on record, which shows that the case of the petitioner was being considered for this purpose. The aforesaid correspondent are Annexures 5, 6, 7 and 8, which demonstrate that a finding of fact has come that petitioner and his younger brother Amit Kumar, were dependent on them deceased brother Manoj Kumar and were living with him. It was also recorded that the father of the petitioner is alive and is working in Akashvani.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid information, the application of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, was rejected vide order dated 1.12.2011, a copy whereof is Annexure-9 to the petition. The petitioner filed a representation before the Managing Director, Jal Nigam, Lucknow, challenging the aforesaid communication. In the order dated 1.12.2011 two grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner were mentioned. First ground is that the petitioner is son of Chhote Lal and as such he is his family member and second ground is that since Chhote Lal is alive and is working in Akashvani, therefore, he would be treated as dependent of his father Chhote Lal and cannot be treated a dependent of his brother Manoj Kumar and it will also be deemed that the financial condition of the family of Chhote Lal is sound. It was further observed that in case the petitioner is not able to maintain himself, his father is liable to maintain him and for this purpose he may proceed against his father and that under these circumstances compassionate appointment cannot be granted to him. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3287 of 2013, highlighting the communication dated 1.12.2011 regarding the rejection of his claim and that the matter on his further representation is not being proceeded with by the competent authorities. In the aforesaid writ petition a direction was issued to the concerned authority to finalise the proceedings preferably within two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order before him, a copy of the judgement and order dated 21.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 3287 of 2013 is Annexure-12 to the writ petition.