Jainendra Singh vs The State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2- Special Secretary, Shiksha Anubhag-5, U.P., Lucknow to decide petitioner''s representation dated 10.11.1999 appended as annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein a prayer was made for providing appointment under dying in harness rules.

The petitioner''s father who was working as assistant teacher, died in harness in the year 1984 and the representation aforesaid was made seeking appointment in the year 1999.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 6 of a Davison Bench judgment of this Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, General Manager (Transmission West), U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Deputy General Manager, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission Division Vs. Jitendra Pratap Singh and State of U.P., , which is as under:

Thus, the proviso grants power of relaxation where the Board is satisfied that the time limit for making an application would cause undue hardship in the particular case. In the present case, undoubtedly the respondent No. 1 could not have applied when he was minor. It is only when he became major he could apply which he did no within a month. That application had thus come to be entertained by the appellants.

In the present case, in the year 1984 at the time of death of deceased employee, his wife was also one of his dependents, but she did apply for employment. Family of the deceased has survived since 1984 till 2008 for about 24 years and has also arranged for education of the petitioner who claims to have passed B.A. examination from Allahabad University.

The fact that Mother of the petitioner did not apply for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after the death of her husband and has been able to provide education to her children after the death of her husband, leads to irresistible conclusion that family at present is not under indigent circumstances.

If the sons were minor at the time of death, the widow cannot keep her rights alive in this respect for more than five years as provided under the Govt. Order. After expiry of the said period, relaxation is to be granted by the Govt. if sufficient reasons are shown. In the present case, the cause shown by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground appears to be insufficient.

So far as the judgment in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the counsel, is concerned, facts in that case are entirely different. In that case, dependent of the deceased employee was initially given appointment on 14.2.2001 but subsequently that appointment was cancelled on 19.2.2002 which is not the position in the present case. Besides it, the aforesaid aspects about indigent circumstances of the family etc. do not appear to have been taken into consideration in the said decision.

For the reasons stated above, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.