UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.S. Singh Visen who has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

(2.) On 17 July 2017 when the writ petition was taken up, the following orders came to be passed by the Court:

(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the Regional Manager in the respondent Corporation has filed his affidavit on 6 August 2017. As per the disclosure made in the said affidavit, it is stated that the mother of the petitioner was not granted appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the fact that she did not possess the minimum qualification. The affidavit then refers to a ban which was imposed by Government Orders dated 17 April 2002 and 11 July 200 It further refers to subsequent Government Orders issued in 2005, 2010 and 2016 to submit that pursuant to the permissions granted by the State Government, appointments were made on compassionate grounds. An additional plea which is taken by the Corporation and as stands reflected in paragraph 3 of the affidavit is that since the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds nine years after the death of the father, no appointment could have been made in his favour in light of "Rule 5 (3)" of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules 1974. Along with the affidavit the respondents have also filed a chart of appointments made on compassionate grounds. From the disclosure made therein, it appears that as many as 159 appointments on compassionate grounds have been made by the Corporation.