Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1997 (ALL)

Kushagra Saxena v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2012-08-31

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2012
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Notice on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the Learned Chief Standing Counsel. In view of the proposed order notice to opposite party no.3 is hereby dispensed with. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2012 whereby the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the mother of petitioner is an employee of the Oriental Insurance Company Private Ltd. which is a Corporation under the Central Government and, as such, the case of petitioner is not covered under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules'). Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner late Kamal Kumar Saxena, was a State Government servant. He died on 03.12.2009 while working on the post of 'Samiksha Adhikari '(Reviewing Officer) at Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. The mother of petitioner is suffering with serious ailment of Hepatitis 'C' which is incurable and her treatment is going on at SGPGIMS, Lucknow. The family of petitioner is in need of money and, as such, the mother of petitioner had made a request for considering the candidature of petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her husband late Kamal Kumar Saxena. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that one Smt. Latika has been appointed on compassionate ground under the Rules, in place of her father, although her mother was already working on the post of Telephone Operator in the Secretariat, Lucknow. As such, there are instances where the opposite parties have given compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee relaxing the Rules. As such, the candidature of petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that since his mother is working in a Company of the Central Government, therefore, he is not covered under the Rules. The order impugned is, therefore, not sustainable. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 under which compassionate appointment of dependents of a State Government Employee can be considered stipulates certain condition which are given in Rule 5. Rule 5 of the Rules is quoted hereunder: "Rule 5 of the Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 5. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 under which compassionate appointment of dependents of a State Government Employee can be considered stipulates certain condition which are given in Rule 5. Rule 5 of the Rules is quoted hereunder: "Rule 5 of the Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.- (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the 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 purposes, 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, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person- (i) fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the government servant; Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner." (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death." As such, under proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules the power of relaxation in time limit has been given. Rules 8 of the rules provides relaxation in procedural requirements for selection, such as written test or interview by a Selection Committee or by any other authority. Rule 8 of the Rules is reproduced below: "8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.-(1) The candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. Rule 8 of the Rules is reproduced below: "8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.-(1) The candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. (2) The procedural requirements for selection, such as written test or interview by a selection committee or any other authority, shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the appointing authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards or work and efficiency expected on the post. (3) An appointment under these rules shall be made against an existing vacancy only." From the conjoint reading it is manifestly clear that in case a Government servant dies in harness after commencement of the Rules and the spouse of deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or in a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of the 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 be given a suitable employment in Government Service on a post not covered within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, after relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is otherwise qualified for Government service, and makes an application for employment within five years from the date of death of the Government servant. However, proviso to Rule 5 provides power to the State Government to grant relaxation in time limit fixed for making the application for employment in case it causes undue hardship in any particular case. The State Government may dispense with or relax the requirement as may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Rule 8 of the rules provide relaxation from age and other requirements such as procedural requirement for selection etc. however, the Rules do not grant relaxation in the condition provided in Rule 5 of the Rules. Rule 8 of the rules provide relaxation from age and other requirements such as procedural requirement for selection etc. however, the Rules do not grant relaxation in the condition provided in Rule 5 of the Rules. As such it is very much clear that in case the spouse of the deceased Government servant is already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, the dependent of the deceased employee is not entitled to get compassionate appointment under the Rules. In the present case, it is admitted position that mother of the petitioner is an employee of a company owned and controlled by the Central Government, as such he is not covered under the Rules. So far as contention of learned counsel for petitioner that under the similar facts and circumstances earlier appointment has been given to some other person by the opposite parties, it is noteworthy to mention that if a wrong has been committed by the opposite parties the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner. The writ petition, as such being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. _____________