0

Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Granted 26 Years After Employee’s Death: Allahabad High Court

Blog , ,

CASE TITLE: Avnish Tandon vs. Assistant General Manager [Writ A No. 10831 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 12.07.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble J.J. Munir,J.

PETITIONER: – Avnish Tandon

RESPONDENT: – Assistant General Manager

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: – Sharad Tandon

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: – Anadi Krishna Narayana

INTRODUCTION

The Allahabad High Court ruled that compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the immediate hardships faced by a family following the untimely demise of the earning member. However, such an appointment cannot be granted after a period of 26 years has passed since the employee’s death.

FACTS:

The Petitioner’s mother served as a Cashier-cum-Clerk in the former Bareilly Corporation Bank (BCB) and passed away while still in service on November 12, 1996, leaving behind a minor son and daughter. The Petitioner, after completing graduation in 2007, applied for compassionate appointment in Bank of Baroda (BOB) following the merger of the two entities in 1999. In 2022, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Bank to consider their claim.

The Court directed BOB to review the claim but emphasized that the application was significantly delayed, and the directions were given solely because BOB had invited the Petitioner to apply. After the Bank rejected the Petitioner’s application, the current petition was filed.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The High Court ruled that despite the petitioner having been asserting his claim since 2007, he failed to take any action to enforce his rights. Due to the substantial delay of fifteen years in approaching the Court (from 2007 to 2022 when the initial approach was made), the Court could not grant any relief.

Upon dismissing the writ petition, the Court noted that any financial hardships that might have arisen due to the death of the petitioner’s mother no longer exist at this point.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgment.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

0

Reliance On Wrong Precedent Renders Decision ‘Erroneous’, Can’t Be Corrected Under ‘Review Jurisdiction’: Allahabad High Court

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE: M/S Vaid Organics and Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others [CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. – 41 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 31.07.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon’ble Manish Kumar,J.

APPLICANT: – M/S Vaid Organics and Chemical Industries Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Director Swarn Singh

OPPOSITE PARTY: – State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Industries U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: – Piyush Kumar Agarwal,Akhilesh Kumar Kalra

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: – Kartikey Dubey

INTRODUCTION:

While denying a review petition, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that a review cannot be granted solely based on the argument that the previous bench relied on an allegedly incorrect precedent from the Apex Court. The court clarified that review jurisdiction is only applicable when there is a clear and evident error on the record.

FACTS:

The Applicant received extensions to establish new industries, but they failed to meet the terms of the lease agreement. Consequently, UPSIDC terminated the lease. Subsequently, the Applicant contested the lease termination before the Allahabad High Court.

The Writ Court, basing its decision on the Supreme Court’s ruling in ITC Limited v. State of UP (2011), rejected the petition. The court observed that UPSIDC was established to promote industrialization, generate employment, and improve the economy. As the Applicant repeatedly failed to adhere to the lease agreement conditions despite receiving ample time extensions, it negatively impacted industrial development. Thus, the court upheld the validity of UPSIDC’s decision to terminate the lease.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The Court ruled that the Appellate Court has the authority to rectify an erroneous judgment made by the High Court. During a review, the Court’s focus is limited to identifying any evident errors present in the case record. If the Court has mistakenly based its decision on a Supreme Court judgment and committed an error in the order, such correction can be carried out in the Appellate jurisdiction rather than by a bench conducting a review of its own judgment.

Consequently, the termination of the allotment by UPSIDC was deemed valid, as the applicant held the property for seventeen years without undertaking any construction, development, or employment generation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani