Sima Singh vs. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko And Ors

Held

The Court held that the submissions of the appellant-petitioner were misconceived. The learned Single Judge had correctly distinguished the factual background of the present case from that in Kamalbhan Singh. While Abhishek Kumar relied on Kamalbhan Singh, the Single Judge in Abhishek Kumar had apparently overlooked the crucial fact that in Kamalbhan Singh, the Corporation was in profit. In the present case, the Corporation was running into losses, as evidenced by pending employee payments of Rs. 88.66 crore till January 2021 and the loss of exemption from trade tax due to GST imposition. The Court noted Government Orders dated 11.7.2003 and 17.8.2020, which stipulated that compassionate appointments would not be made in State Corporations running into losses. The Court found no illegality in the Single Judge's decision to deny compassionate appointment given the Corporation's financial distress. The argument that the Corporation should have challenged the Abhishek Kumar judgment was rejected because the Single Judge in Abhishek Kumar had likely erred by not considering the Corporation's financial losses and the relevant Government Orders. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts

This is an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge's order dated 26.11.2021, which rejected the appellant-petitioner Sima Singh's claim for compassionate appointment in the U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation. The appellant argued that the Single Judge ignored previous judgments of the High Court in Abhishek Kumar (2019) and Kamalbhan Singh (2016), which supported compassionate appointments. The order under challenge before the Single Judge was dated 1.4.2021, passed by the Executive Director of the Corporation, which reiterated reasons for rejection given in an earlier order dated 12.11.2020. This earlier order had been quashed by the High Court on 9.3.2021 in a prior writ petition filed by the appellant. The Corporation contended that the Single Judge's order was not illegal and should be dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment by not following the precedents set in Writ Petition No. 22494 (S.S.) of 2018 (Abhishek Kumar) and Writ Petition No. 2352 (S.S.) of 2014 (Kamalbhan Singh), thereby violating the principle of adherence to judgments of coordinate benches. Petitioner's Argument: The learned Single Judge failed to consider the binding judgments of coordinate benches in Abhishek Kumar and Kamalbhan Singh. The order dated 1.4.2021, which was challenged before the Single Judge, was in direct contravention of a previous High Court order dated 9.3.2021 that had quashed the earlier rejection order. The appellant relied on the Division Bench judgment in Pramod Kumar Singh (2008) for the principle that coordinate benches should follow previous decisions unless set aside or appealed. Respondent's Argument: The learned Single Judge's order dated 26.11.2021 suffers from no illegality or apparent error and should be dismissed at the threshold. The respondents did not explicitly address the argument regarding the binding nature of coordinate bench judgments but argued the overall correctness of the Single Judge's decision.