SHIV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter/communication of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam Khand, Obra, Sonebhadra dated 23.2.2008 wherein it is stated that the compassionate appointment of petitioner would be considered after the decision in Original Suit No. 631 of 2004 instituted by Sri Mohan Prasad son of Jaipati in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. The aforesaid letter was communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 58491 of 2007 decided on 28.1.2007, earlier filed by petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Sri Triveni Prasad, who was a permanent class IV employee in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam, Obra, district Sonebhadra/respondent no.2, died while in service on 4.10.2003. THE petitioner claims to be adopted son and dependent of said Triveni Prasad thus moved an application in the office of respondent no.2 for his appointment on compassionate ground against class IV post on 13.1.2004. Since no action was taken by the respondent no.2 for appointment of petitioner in spite of several representations and reminders, he filed writ petition referred herein before and while deciding said writ petition vide order dated 28.11.2007 this Court has directed the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner within a period of three months. In pursuance thereof vide impugned order/letter dated 23.2.2008 the respondent no.2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner has deferred the consideration of claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner and declined to appoint him at the moment on account of pendency of Suit No. 631 of 2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria instituted by Sri Mohan Prasad son of Jaipati @ Jairasi Prasad respondent no.3, hence this petition.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 wherein the relevant replies of various paragraphs of the writ petition given in paras 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 are as under:- "3. That in reply to the contents of para 1 of the writ petition it is stated that as for the same dispute and controversy, involved in the present writ petition, the respondent no.3 Mohan Prasad has filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoria, which is pending for consideration, as such, due to this reason, the claim of the petitioner being the legal heir of late Triveni Prasad is pending. Hence, due to pendency of the matter for declaration of legal heir of deceased Triveni Prasad in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria, it is not possible for the answering respondents to dispose of the matter for declaration of heir of deceased Triveni Prasad. 4. That the contents of paras 2,3,4,5 and 6 of the writ petition do not need any specific reply, being matter of record. 5. That in reply to the contents of para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that due to pendency of suit for declaration of legal heir of deceased Triveni Prasad, in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria, no consideration on the petitioner's application for his appointment on compassionate ground, is being possible by the answering respondents.