Sanjai Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner''s father (late) Sheo Kumar Singh was a head constable in the police department. On 2nd December, 1987, while working at Lakhimpur Kheri, when the father of the petitioner had left for District Raebareilly, his whereabouts could not be ascertained by the authorities. A Criminal Case No. 244 of 1987 u/s 302/207, I.P.C. was registered. The apprehension was that he was being killed by some assailants at that time. A charge-sheet was filed u/s 364, I.P.C. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri in compliance of the Government order dated 27.12.1989 declared the father of the petitioner (late) Sheo Kumar Singh as deed and informed the Government by his letter dated 2nd of June, 2001, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

Wife of (late) Sri Sheo Kumar Singh has moved an application in July, 1995, with a statement that after lapse of 7 (seven) years of period, her husband shall deemed to be dead and accordingly, her eldest son being the dependent on his father may be given appointment on compassionate ground. Copy of the letter of wife of (late) Sheo Kumar Singh has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the reason for not giving appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been mentioned is that the persons who are not traceable for any reasons whatsoever, their dependant shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that by order dated 12.11.1987 (late) Sheo Kumar Singh was transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Raebareli and accordingly he was relieved on 2.12.1987. His brother has lodged on F.I.R. on 27.7.1988 u/s 302/291, I.P.C. against one Sri Brijesh Shukla and others that they have killed Sri Sheo Kumar Singh but the accused were acquitted on 6th of August, 1999 by competent court.

Wife of (late) Sheo Kumar Singh has submitted application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 9.11.1989 with the prayer that her eldest son, i.e., the petitioner may be appointed on compassionate grounds. The application of petitioner''s mother was rejected only on the ground that under dying-in-harness rules, the dependants of lost persons are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The grounds for refusal, at the face of the record, seems to be misconceived. Once the Superintendent of Police, himself by his order dated 2nd of June, 2001, has informed that on 27th December, 1989, that Sri Sheo Kumar Singh died and all the post retiral benefits were paid to his wife, then, there seems to be no justification for not allowing the benefits under Dying-in-harness Rules. A persual of the dying-in-harness rules notified on 7th October, 1974, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, at the face of the record, shows that the dependants of the family of the deceased Government servants shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. While interpreting the provisions contained under dying-in-harness rules, the purpose of the provisions should be kept in mind. In case, the benefit of the rules is not provided to the dependant of the employees who lost during the course of service even if they are declared dead by the authorities themselves, then the very purpose of the provision shall be deprecated. Hon''ble Supreme Court in case in Easland Combines, Coimbatore Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, , has held as under:

"It is duty imposed on the Courts in interpreting a particular provision of law to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the Legislature and in doing so, they should presume that the provision was designed to effectuate a particular object or to meet a particular requirement. (Re Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand)."

Hon''ble Supreme Court in another case in High Court of Gujarat and another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat. and Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 712, held that a statute must be interpreted having regard to the purport and object which it seeks to achieve.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in one another case in D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , has held that a regulatory act must be construed having regard to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

In another case in Narinder Kaur Makol v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 474 , held that the principle of purposeful interpretation in respect of allotment of residential plot or house is provided by rules.

And more so, according to the Section 108 of the Evidence Act when a person who is not traceable for the last 7 years from the date of his missing, shall be deemed to be dead. Section 108 of the Evidence Act is reproduced as under :

" 108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.- (Provided that when) the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is (shifted to) the person who affirms it.

There may be cases where while discharging duties particularly in police force or armed force persons may be placed in the list of lost or missing employees for some unforeseen reasons and denial for appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of such employees even after the lapse of statutory period of 7 years shall frustrate the very purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

In view of the above discussions, the principle of purposeful interpretation may be applied in the present case while considering the availability of benefits to the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The purpose of Dying-in-Harness Rules is to provide help to the family of the deceased of a Government employee by making appointment on compassionate ground. After the death of Government employee in harness or in case the Government employee is not traceable on account of certain mishappenings like happened in the present case, the appointment on compassionate ground of a dependent may save the family from dying on account of starvation and financial hardships. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, a writ in the nature ofmandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider petitioner''s case for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of his merit or qualification for appropriate post expeditiously and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.