JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 8.5.2002 by which the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. 3. The facts as pleaded in the writ petition is that Shri Durg Sah, father of the petitioner was a Police Constable and he died in harness on 24.10.1985 while posted at District Mathura. He was survived by three sons excluding the petitioner and the widow mother. It is admitted in the pleadings that the two elder brothers Chandra Pal and Shanti Swaroop were employed as Police Constable. However, Chandra Pal resigned and joined the District Agriculture Department of the State. It is further averred that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura vide his letter dated 19.9.1998 forwarded it to the Police Headquarters and subsequently the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 6.9.2001 and thereafter was sent for training on 19.9.2001. On 1.12.2001 a First Information Report against the petitioner, his mother and brothers was lodged under Sections 409, 420, 468, 467 and 472, I.P.C. with the allegation that all the three brothers had obtained compassionate appointments on various dates by giving false declaration. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 22.12.2001 in view of the lodging of the First Information Report. However, without holding any disciplinary proceedings his services have been dispensed with treating him a temporary employee under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that since compassionate appointment is permanent in nature as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1999(3) ESC 972, his termination under the 1975 Rules was illegal. He has gone on to urge that since there were allegations against him, his services could only be terminated by holding a domestic enquiry. In the last he has urged that both his brothers were never granted compassionate appointment but were regularly selected and, therefore, the allegations were also incorrect. 5. Before we proceed to consider the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to once again notice the admitted and unrebbuted facts. 6. In the last he has urged that both his brothers were never granted compassionate appointment but were regularly selected and, therefore, the allegations were also incorrect. 5. Before we proceed to consider the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to once again notice the admitted and unrebbuted facts. 6. On the aforesaid basis, let us first examine the validity of the appointment of the petitioner assuming his brothers were not granted compassionate appointment. 7. The father of the petitioner died on 24.10.1985. The allegation in the counter-affidavit that Chandrapal was appointed as a Constable on 4.9.1986 has not been specifically denied in the rejoinder affidavit. Admittedly, Shanti Swaroop was appointed on 3.8.1989. There is no specific allegation as to when did the petitioner apply for compassionate appointment but only a reference of the alleged recommendatory letter of the Superintendent of Police, Mathura dated 19.9.1998 has been made. Thus, admittedly the petitioner waited for action for compassionate appointment for 13 years after the death of his father. There is no explanation as to how he survived alongwith his mother for these 13 long years when it is alleged that he was living separately alongwith his widow mother and allegedly were not dependent on his brothers. The object of compassionate appointment as envisaged in the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is to provide immediate financial relief to one member of the bereaved family whose sole bread winner dies in financial penury. Admittedly, three brothers of the petitioner including Raghuvir who had been appointed in the Police Department prior to death of his father, were in employment when the petitioner claimed and was granted compassionate appointment. The word ‘family’ as used in the Rules includes real brothers and does not differentiate between a brother who is living separately or with the mother or other brothers. The rigours of regular Recruitment Rules have been relaxed to achieve the aforesaid object for compassionate appointment and this power has been saved at the altar of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to subserve the aforesaid object. The Rules neither give a vested right nor entitles the incumbent to claim it as a indefeasible right. Since the three brothers of the petitioner were in service, the very appointment of the petitioner was not only illegal but void. The Rules neither give a vested right nor entitles the incumbent to claim it as a indefeasible right. Since the three brothers of the petitioner were in service, the very appointment of the petitioner was not only illegal but void. Therefore, even if there is violation of any statutory rule in terminating his services, on these facts, the Court can refuse interference under its discretionary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The issue whether Chandrapal and Shanti Swaroop were granted compassionate appointment or through regular selection can now be examined on the basis of the record available. 9. At the outset the State respondents have stated that some documents, including the appointment letters of the two brothers have been conveniently misplaced from the records for which a criminal charge-sheet on the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report has already been filed in Court. However, certain documents have been annexed to show that except under Dying in Harness Rules, none of the two brothers could have been appointed. A copy of an application moved by Chandrapal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Region is annexed with the affidavit sworn by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma. In this application Chandrapal has claimed compassionate appointment on the death of his father and has referred to three Government orders dated 21.12.1973, 6.12.1973 and 7.10.1974 stating that there is no source of income and he has to support a large family and, therefore, should be given compassionate appointment. In the application itself which is dated 23.6.1986, the Deputy Inspector General of Police endorsed it to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura who in turn sent it to Senior Superintendent of Police as recruitment was being made at Agra for taking a sympathetic view. In the said affidavit the first page of the service book of Chandrapal has also been annexed which reflects his date of birth is 5.1.1961. These documents have not been specifically denied. It is also not denied that at the relevant time the recruitment age limit in the Police department was between 18 to 20 years and on the date of his recruitment Chandrapal was overage by 5 years 7 months and 29 days. The petitioner and Chandrapal do not claim that they belong to any reserved category where a candidate is entitled to age relaxation. The petitioner and Chandrapal do not claim that they belong to any reserved category where a candidate is entitled to age relaxation. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to how and why this huge relaxation of more than 5 and a half years was given to Chandrapal. However, the learned Standing Counsel has explained, and rightly so, that since it was compassionate appointment, relaxation in age as provided in the Dying in Harness Rules was given and Chandrapal was appointed. 10. In the same affidavit the State respondents have annexed a copy of the letter dated 2.6.1989 addressed to the Superintendents of Police, Etawah, Etah and Firozabad seeking police verification and L.I.U. enquiry for the purposes of giving compassionate appointment to four persons, including Shanti Swaroop, the other brother of the petitioner. The first page of the service book of Shanti Swaroop has also been annexed which shows that his date of birth as given by him is recorded as 10.5.1962. There is no specific denial of both these documents. It is thus apparent that even Shanti Swaroop was overage by more than two years and no explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to how and why the relaxation was given except for the explanation given by the learned Standing Counsel that since it was under Dying in Harness Rules, the age was relaxed accordingly. 11. Thus, it is evident that two brothers had already claimed and obtained compassionate appointment but unfortunately for the petitioner and fortunately for the teeming unemployed youth of this country the entire fraudulent act of the brothers has been unearthed. 12. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, it is not necessary to deal with any of the argument raised by the Counsel for the petitioner as the entire claim of the petitioner was based on false and fraudulent acts. 13. Mere dismissal of the writ petition would not be sufficient as such glaring fraudulent actions have to be smothered with an iron hand and exemplary cost be recovered from the petitioner. 14. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 15. However, on the facts of this case, the petition is dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 14. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 15. However, on the facts of this case, the petition is dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 25,000/- which should be paid by the petitioner through a demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent No. 3 within a period of one month. In case of failure the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Etah within a further period of one month and deposited with the respondent No. 3. 16. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No. 3, forthwith. ————