Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2907 (ALL)

Parvesh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-12-14

NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2012
Shri Narayan Shukla, J.— Heard Mr.Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2008, whereby the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment has been rejected as barred by time by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasanganj, Unnao. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner's father died on 1.10.1978, whereas the representation for compassionate appointment was moved after 19 years. This court by means of interim order dated 23.1.2009 again given liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive representation with the direction to the authority concerned to dispose of the same expeditiously within a month from the date of its presentation. Accordingly the petitioner moved fresh representation and the authority concerned again rejected the same by means of order dated 18th of November, 2009, which is under challenge in the writ petition No.8169 (SS) of 2009. Writ Petition No.8169 (SS) of 2009 4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th of November, 2009, whereby the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 5. The facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner's father died on 1.10.1978. The application for compassionate appointment was moved at first time on 19.10.1997 i.e. about after 19 years. It is stated that on the date of death of his father the petitioner was minor and when he became major he moved the application for appointment, whereas the petitioner's mother was there who could have claimed the compassionate appointment, but she did not claim, therefore, the application being highly belated, the same has been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasanganj, Unnao. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority to condone the delay is the State Government, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Hasanganj, Unnao is without jurisdiction. He has no jurisdiction to pass the order on the application for condonation of delay in moving the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority to condone the delay is the State Government, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Hasanganj, Unnao is without jurisdiction. He has no jurisdiction to pass the order on the application for condonation of delay in moving the application. He drew my attention towards Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which is extracted below:- "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, 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 which is not within the purview of the State 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 of the date of 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 for as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death." 7. As is evident from the aforesaid Rules, I find that the power to condone the delay in moving the application for compassionate appointment is vested with the State Government, therefore, I am of the view that instead of rejecting the petitioner's application, on the ground of delay, it should have been referred to the State Government for its decision, therefore, I hereby quash the order impugned and direct the Deputy Collection, Hasanganj, Unnao to refer the matter to the State Government to consider the question of condonation of delay in moving the application for compassionate appointment. 8. 8. For the aforesaid observations, I do not feel it appropriate to make any comment upon the merit of the case at this stage, rather I hereby provide that the Deputy Collector concerned shall refer the matter to the State Government, as above, within fifteen days after receipt of a certified copy of this order and the State Government shall take decision in the matter within next two months. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions the writ petitions stand disposed of finally. _____________