Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 14, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/469489

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/469489
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.K. Seth, J.
Decided On: Dec 14, 1998
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 37606 of 1998
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - destitution - provision introduced to provide employment to save family from immediate destitution on account of loss of livelihood because of acquisition of property - petitioner seeking such employment on grounds of said provision - land acquired in 1982 and claim for employment placed in 1998 - assumpti...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mithilesh Kumar Singh

Advocate R.P. Giri, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C. and ;B.D. Mandhyan, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 1999(2)AWC1128A

Excerpt

service - destitution - provision introduced to provide employment to save family from immediate destitution on account of loss of livelihood because of acquisition of property - petitioner seeking such employment on grounds of said provision - land acquired in 1982 and claim for employment placed in 1998 - assumption of destitution of petitioner's family does not hold good as long time has elapsed after acquisition - right of employment does not survive after such delay. - d. k. seth, j.1. the petitioner is claiming for appointment pursuant tothe government order dated 29.2.1996 and 28.12.1973. the petitioner had applied for such appointment for the first time on 17.2.1998, whereas the land was acquired in 1982. the petitioner has alleged that he was born on 1.7.1978, therefore, on the date of acquisition of land, the petitioner was four years old. since his case was not acceded to the petitioner had moved a writ petition no. 7693 of 1998 which was disposed of on 5.3.1998 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in terms of the government order. pursuant thereto, the petitioner's case was considered by order dated 14.5.1998 being annexure-4 to the writ petition. the said order is supported by reason to the extent that the land was acquired in 1982 when the petitioner was minor having born on 1.7.1978 and had applied for the post only on 17.2.1998.2. the said government order was in existence since 1973 as indicated above but no application was made for these long 16 years. the said provision was introduced to save a family from immediate destitution on account of loss of livelihood because of such acquisition of the property. after 16 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers destitution on account of such acquisition which was effected some time in 1982 for which compensation was paid long back to his father. it does not appear that the petitioner's father who could have applied under the said provision, had applied for or not. if he has not applied, the right which he had accrued, appears to have been waived and the petitioner was being minor at that time cannot claim to continue with such right and it may not survive for such a long time waiting the petitioner for attainment of majority. after having gone through the impugned order. i do not find any infirmity. the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. however, there will be no order as to cost.

Full Judgment

D. K. Seth, J.

1. The petitioner is claiming for appointment pursuant tothe Government Order dated 29.2.1996 and 28.12.1973. The petitioner had applied for such appointment for the first time on 17.2.1998, whereas the land was acquired in 1982. The petitioner has alleged that he was born on 1.7.1978, therefore, on the date of acquisition of land, the petitioner was four years old. Since his case was not acceded to the petitioner had moved a Writ Petition No. 7693 of 1998 which was disposed of on 5.3.1998 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in terms of the Government Order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's case was considered by order dated 14.5.1998 being Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said order is supported by reason to the extent that the land was acquired in 1982 when the petitioner was minor having born on 1.7.1978 and had applied for the post only on 17.2.1998.

2. The said Government Order was in existence since 1973 as indicated above but no application was made for these long 16 years. The said provision was introduced to save a family from immediate destitution on account of loss of livelihood because of such acquisition of the property. After 16 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers destitution on account of such acquisition which was effected some time in 1982 for which compensation was paid long back to his father. It does not appear that the petitioner's father who could have applied under the said provision, had applied for or not. If he has not applied, the right which he had accrued, appears to have been waived and the petitioner was being minor at that time cannot claim to continue with such right and it may not survive for such a long time waiting the petitioner for attainment of majority. After having gone through the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1998 Same Parties Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge D.K. Seth, J.

Service