Girja Shanker vs State of U.P.and Others

A.N. Varma, J.—Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.9.2002 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition whereby his candidature for compassionate appointment has been rejected. A furtheVdirection has been sought for that the opposite parties be directed to provide suitable appointment to the petitioner under the provisions of the relevant Rule.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as veil as learned Standing counsel at some length.

The father of the petitioner, who was a Constable and was serving with the opposite parties at Unnao, died on 5.9.88 in harness in district Unnao. At that time the petitioner was minor. On 17.2.89, the mother of the petitioner made an application before the opposite party No.2 praying therein that his son i.e. the petitioner be given a suitable appointment upon attaining the age of majority. The said application has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the petition. In the year 2000 the petitioner upon attaining the age of majority, on 3.4.2000 preferred representation before the opposite party No.2 wherein he prayed that as he has become major, therefore, he be provided with a suitable appointment under the provisions of dyinginharness Rule. The said application is contained in Annexure No.5. Vide order dated 13.9.2002 which has been impugned in the writ petition as Annexure No.1, the application of the petitioner has been rejected, on the ground that the said application by the petitioner is belated and the relaxation cannot be given and his case of relaxation cannot be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules'') which reads as follows:

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:

(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a corporation owned or controlled by the central Government or a State Government shall on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government Service, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment Rules, if such person:

(i) fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed or the post,

(ii) Is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

(iii) Makes the application for employment within five years of the date of death of the government servant.

Provided that where the state Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death."

Admittedly when the father of the petitioner died there was no one to look after the family except the widow who too was illiterate and had no source of income. Besides the petitioner there were two other children in the family i.e. one brother aged about two years and a sister aged about 13 years. It is submitted that with great difficulty the mother somehow managed to pull along the family. She, however, also passed away in 1997. Still there is no bread earner in the family. The younger brother of the petitioner is studying in High School and the sister has since been married.

Looking to the pathetic condition of the family and financial stress and strain that it has undergone all these years, the order dated 13.9.2002 was not justified. The opposite parties have not at all taken into account the tremendous difficulties that the petitioner and his family faced upon the death of their father way back in the year 1988.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 13.9.2002 passed by opposite party No.2 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reconsider the matter afresh. The petitioner may make a fresh application before opposite party No.1 within a period of two weeks from today, who shall take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the aforesaid Rules and the proviso appended thereto. The State Government shall decide the matter regarding the question of dispensing with or relaxation of the requirement as contemplated under the proviso appended to the said Rules within a period of three months thereafter. While considering the question of dispensing with or relaxation, the financial stress and strain as well as the immense hardship that the entire family has undergone shall also be taken into account by opposite party No.1. After the said question having been so considered and decided, the opposite party No.2 shall take necessary steps to appoint the petitioner under the provisions of 1974 Rules.

(Petition allowed)