Vindeshwar Tiwari alias Vindeshwari Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has come with request for quashing of order dated 05.04.2011 passed by Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, proceeding to reject the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

Earlier, petitioner had rushed to this Court by preferring writ petition No. 52437 of 2010, wherein this Court on 28.08.2010 had asked the authority concerned to take decision on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court, claim of the petitioner had been considered and non-suited on the premises that services of the petitioner''s father had been disengaged on 23.06.2006 and at the point of time when he died on 04.02.2009, he was not in employment, and in view of this petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment has been refused. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court for the reliefs mentioned above.

Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the petitioner''s had served the department for sufficiently long period, and in view of this, petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Gaurav Pachauri vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (10) ADJ 379 .

Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that the claim of the petitioner does not fall within the scope and ambit of the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as accepted position is that much prior to his death, services of the petitioner''s father had been disengaged, and the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not at all liable to be considered, as such the decision taken is rightful decision and requires no interference by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are being looked into. Rule 2(a) defines the term "Government servant" and it means a Government Servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh. Under Rule 2 (b) the term "deceased Government servant" has been defined and it means a Government servant who dies while in service. Rule 3 provides that these rules shall apply to recruitment of dependents of the deceased Government servants to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradehs, except services and posts which are within the purview of the Uttar Pradehs Public Service Commission. Rule 5 provides that in case a Government servant dies in harness after commencement of these rules, and spouse of the deceased Government servant 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, 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 purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.

On the parameters of the aforesaid Rules, by no stretch of imagination, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could be considered, inasmuch as, in the present case, services of petitioner''s father had been disengaged in the year 2006, and he died in 2009. Thus, it is clear that at the time of his death, petitioner''s father was not in employment, he could not be treated as ''deceased Government servant''. Once the petitioner ceased to be dependent of a deceased government servant, then by no stretch of imagination his claim for compassionate appointment can be considered. The opinion formed by the authority concerned cannot be faulted. Even otherwise, the judgment relied on by the petitioner will not help him.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.