Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 187 (UTT)

SUNIL KUNWAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-04-27

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned. Brief Holder for the State. Also perused the papers on record. 2. Though the learned Brief Holder for the State sought time to file counter affidavit in the matter, but the Court refused to grant time for filing the same for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter. 3. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that Smt. Mohini Devi was working as Head Mistress in Primary School, Bhatora, Dwarahat, DistrictAlmora. She died in harness on 22.4.1985. Petitioner is the son of said deceased Government Servant. At the time of death of his mother, he was a minor. So, he did not apply for his appointment claiming the benefits of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. After attaining the age of majority and acquiring the academic qualification of Intermediate, the petitioner applied for his appointment on the post of a Teacher, on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules. But the competent authority denied appointment to the petitioner on the post of a Teacher on the ground that he was not eligible to be appointed as such because he was not having requisite educational qualification. However, petitioner was asked to seek appointment in Class IV Group. But instead of doing so, petitioner chose to pursue higher education, and after completing his Post Graduation, he again sought his appointment as a Teacher claiming the benefits of Dying in Harness Rules. When the competent authority paid no heed to his request, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1174/2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2011 with direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the said application of the petitioner within eight weeks. 4. The competent authority, after the aforesaid orders of this Court, considered the application of the petitioner for his appointment, on compassionate ground, to the post of a Teacher under the Dying in Harness Rules, but rejected the same vide impugned order dated 21.2.2012, wherein it has been mentioned that in compliance of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was informed, in advance, to appear personally on 28.12.2011 along with the relevant papers, but he absented himself on the date fixed. However, the competent authority considered the claim of the petitioner and, after reflecting on the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the same on the ground that Rule 8 of the Government Order No. 5193/15-5-2000-400/222/99 dated 4.9.2000, envisaged that dependant of a deceased Government Servant can apply for his appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules within a period of five years only from the date of the demise of the Government Servant. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that any dependent of a deceased Government Servant has no right to claim his appointment under the said Rules after a lapse of considerable time as is envisaged in Government Order No. 853/Karmik-2/2003 dated 12.6.2003, and since 26 years had already elapsed after the death of the concerned Government Servant, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Having considered the pros and cons of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner has judiciously been decided by the competent authority by a speaking and reasoned order, and I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 21.2.2012. Moreover, the main object and purpose of the Dying in Harness Rules is to provide an employment, on compassionate ground, to the family of the person, who died in harness, for mitigating the hardship arisen due to death of the bread earner in the family in order to redeem the family in distress.The papers on record clearly reveals, firstly, that the petitioner did not apply within the stipulated time, secondly, that he never sought any appointed on a Class IV post as was suggested to him by the competent authority and sought himself to be appointed to the post of a Teacher after completing his Post Graduation and, thirdly and most importantly, the petitioner was not dependant on the sole income of his deceased mother inasmuch as his father was also a Government Servant and as such, he was getting his salary from the Government. Apart from this, the family of the deceased Government Servant also got pension for decades. Apart from this, the family of the deceased Government Servant also got pension for decades. The truth that the said family was notin any distress or starvation is also reflected from the fact that the petitioner did not seek his appointment, on compassionate ground, immediately after attaining the age of majority nor he opted for his employment in Class IV category. Rather, he pursued his education up to the Post Graduation and, opted only for his employment on the post of a Teacher. It is a settled principle of law that under the Dying in Harness Rules, a dependent cannot opt for his employment on the post of his choice. 6. In the above-narrated facts and circumstances of the case and the legal proposition (supra), the present petition is totally devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the very threshold with heavy costs inasmuch as such a frivolous petition only results in wastage of valuable time of the Court. But the Court restrained itself from doing so in view of the mercy pleaded by the learned~ounsel for the petitioner. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.