Parvez Alam vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Dinesh Gehtori, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that father of the Petitioner was a Constable in Police Department. He died on 5.3.1994 while doing V.I.P. duty. At the time of death of deceased Ashraf Ali, he was survived by his widow, two daughters and two sons. All the children were minor at the time of his death. On attaining the majority, the Petitioner submitted application on 30.11.2004 before the Respondents to provide appointment to him under Dying-in-Harness Rules. He continued making representations to the authorities and ultimately he filed a writ petition as Writ Petition No. 741 of 2007 (S/S) wherein this Court directed the Director General of Police or any other officer nominated by the Director General of Police, to take decision on the representation of the Petitioner as early as possible. Petitioner submitted representation before Director General of Police, who rejected his representation vide order dated 29.9.2007 stating that his father died about 11 years ago and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Dying-in-Harness Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents in which also it is reiterated that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief after a lapse of 11 years and the Petitioner cannot claim his appointment as a matter of right.

From a perusal of the representations and other documents on record, it transpires that the Petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Immediately after the death of his father, his mother submitted application, however, at that time since all the children were minor, they could not be given the appointment. On attaining the majority, the Petitioner submitted application for his appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules.

It is true that appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be provided to the family of the deceased to avoid immediate financial and pecuniary crises cast upon the family of the deceased. However, in the present case, the Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner had immediately applied and even in the initial application and later on also it had been specifically stated that she is unable to look after the family and to provide education to her children. As per the Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, the State Government/ Appointing Authority is empowered to condone the delay in cases where the authority is satisfied on the basis of the facts of the particular case that the family was living penury. In the present case, admittedly, the wife of the deceased had immediately submitted application after the death of her husband and thereafter the Petitioner also submitted application immediately after attaining the majority. The delay was because of the Petitioner being underage and in such circumstances the delay should have been condoned by the Appointing Authority.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules in the light of observations made above.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.