IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

---------------------------------------
INDEX
IN
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
On behalf of Respondent 2, 3, 4 & 5
IN
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 6833 OF 2024
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT: KANPUR NAGAR)

Ravi Singh S/o Late Gulab Singh, R/o 66 Khadiyalipur,

Majara Saurai Bujurg, Koriyo, Kaushambi.
--------------------------Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Department
Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
through its Secretary and others.
---------------------------Respondents.

SL Particulars Anneuxre Page

No
1. Counter Affidavit with I.D. Proof

Date : /06/2024

(S. K. MISRA)
Advocate
AOR No. A/S 1928/2012
Counsel for the Respondents
Standing Counsel for Food Corporation of
India
Ch. No.101, New Building,
High Court, Allahabad
Mob. No. 9415340023
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
--------------------
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
On behalf of Respondent 2, 3, 4 & 5
IN
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 6833 OF 2024
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
(DISTRICT: KANPUR NAGAR)

Ravi Singh S/o Late Gulab Singh, R/o 66 Khadiyalipur,

Majara Saurai Bujurg, Koriyo, Kaushambi.
--------------------------Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Department
Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
through its Secretary.
2. Assistant General Manager (IR-L), Food Corporation of
India, Headquarter New Delhi.
3. Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Regional Office, Lucknow U.P.
4. Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, 14/79
Civil Line, Kanpur.
5. Manager (Labour) Food Corporation of India, FSD
Chandari, District Kanpur.
--------------------------- Respondents

Affidavit of
, aged about years, S/o
, presently working as Food
Corporation of India, District
Office 14/79 Civil Line,
District Kanpur

Religion: Hindu
Occupation: Service.
(
Deponent)
 I the above named deponent most solemnly affirm state on oath as
follows:-
1. That the deponent is respondent no.4 and presently working as

Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office-

14/79 Civil Line, Kanpur and is doing pairvi on behalf of the

respondent no.2, 3 & 5 in the abovenoted counter affidavit, he is

well acquainted with the facts deposed to below.

2. That before giving paraiwse reply there are some important faces

which are necessary to bring before the knowledge of this Hon’ble

Court for proper adjudication.

3. That the father of petitioner namely Late Gulab Singh was working

as Ex-Loader in Food Corporation of India, District Office 14/79

Civil Line, Kanpur and had been died on 04.02.2015.

4. That the father of petitioner Late Gulab Singh, leaving behind his

with and three sons and two daughters alongwith petitioner as

dependents.

5. That the family of deceased has received Rs.2,95,383/- as Gratuity,

CPF Final 1,10,316/-, Withhold CPF Rs.6,10,000/-, Benevolent

Fund Rs.18,641/-, Productive Linked Incentive Rs.21,812/- and

Incentive OTA arrear of Rs.1,26,999/-.

6. That the petitioner family cannot be said in pecuniary condition. The

financial condition of deceased family is sound.

7. That after demise of Late Gulab Singh, her son namely Ravi Singh

has applied for consideration of compassionate appointment before

the competent authority by submitting requisite application form on

prescribed proforma along with all details and affidavit of no

objection.
8. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure

from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by

following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a

provisions enables appointment being made without following the

said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general

provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the

stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get

over the sudden financial crisis.

9. That appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of

recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by

the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the

dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of

livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the

sudden financial crisis.

10. That the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which

can be exercised at any time in future Compassionate employment

cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the

crisis is over.

11. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately

to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case

pending for years.

12. That in determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all

relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the

family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the

family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members,

together with the income from any other source.

13. That dying in harness is exception to the Article 16 of the

Constitution of India and is not legal right.

14. That the present writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable

and Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the aforesaid writ

petition on ground of alternative remedy.

PARAWISE REPLY:

15. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.1 & 2 of the writ

petition it is stated that the averment made therein need no

comments.

16. That the contents of paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition it

is stated that averment contained therein are matter of

record, document refer to therein may be perused in full.

It is further stated that compensate appointment is not

vested right, the appointment assistant is given only to

mitigate the immediate suffering of the deceased family.

The petitioner father had died on 4.2.2105, if the family

can sustain for the last 09 years, there is no reason to not

believe family can sustain further.

17. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

are matter of record. The petitioner family has received

Rs.6,00,000/- as terminal dues, it cannot be said that

time of demise of his father, the petitioner family was in

pecuniary status.
18. That in reply of contents of paragraph No. 5 of the writ

petition, it is stated that averment contained therein are

matter of record, hence need no comment.

19. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

are matter of record and document refer to therein may be

perused in full and no reliance may be place mere

averment contained therein alone. If the compassionate

appointment is provided only to 5% of the vacancy. It is

further stated that since 2003, no appointment no

compassionate appointment has been made.

20. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

are matter of record, hence need no comment.

21. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 8 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

are matter of record. It is further stated that petitioner’s

name was entered in roastered maintain by the District

Office Kanpur for considering their case for appointment

assistant. Mere maintaining the roaster does not

guarantee for compassionate appointment.

22. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 9 & 10 of

the writ petition, it is stated that averment contained

therein are matter of record, hence need no comments.

23. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.11 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

are matter of record, hence need no comments.

24. That the contents of paragraph No.12 of the writ petition,

it is stated that averment contained therein are need no

comments.

25. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 13 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

need no comments.

26. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.14 of the

writ petition it is stated that compassionate appointment

is not a legal right, if the family can sustain for last 9

years, there is no reason to not sustain in future.

Moreover, the Government has launched several social

security scheme like shelter to homeless people (Pradhan

Mantri Awas Yogna) and 5 k.g. per unit ration in addition

to the aforesaid scheme, the Central Govt. has launched

several other welfare scheme.

27. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.15 of the

writ petition, it is stated that the case law cited by the

petitioner is wholly distinguishable and is not applicable

in present facts and circumstances of the case.

28. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.16 of the

writ petition, it is stated that averment contained therein

 are wholly incorrect and denied. It is further stated that

employment assistance is not a legal right.

29. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.17 of the

writ petition, it is stated that making appointment is purely

discretion of management.

30. That in reply to the contents of para 18 of the writ petition

it is stated, it is stated that ground on basis of which

issue of writ petition has been sought is wholly

misconceived and shall be not with stand in scrutiny of

law by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be pleased to dismiss the present writ

petition.

That paragraph 1 and 2 of the affidavit and

paras.......................................................... are based
on personal knowledge and those of paragraph
nos ..............................................................................
.............. of the affidavit are based on perusal of record
and those of
paragraphs..................................................of the
affidavit are based on legal advice nothing is false no
material is concealed.
So help me God.
(Deponent)
I S.K. MISRA, Advocate, High Court,
Allahabad do hereby declare that the person making this
affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is known
to me on the basis of perusal of papers of the case
produced before me.
(Advocate)
 Solemnly affirmed before me on this ………th day of
August, 2022, at about ………… a.m/p.m. by the deponent
who is identified as above.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he

understood that the contents of this affidavit which have
been read over and explained to him.

OATH COMMISSIONER