Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 72 (ALL)

PRAVESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-01-08

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner No. 1 father was appointed as a Class-IV employee in 1984 in the Public Works Department and died in harness on 19.3.2007. The Service Book of the petitioner’s father indicates the date of birth as 15.9.1956. This date of birth recorded in the service book is still existing and has not been modified till the date of the death of the petitioner’s father nor has been modified even after his death. 3. Since the petitioners’ father died-in-harness, the petitioners moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground and for release of pension, gratuity etc. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 7.12.2007. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition. 4. The impugned order indicates, that two weeks prior to the death of the deceased, a complaint was received by the Department indicating that the date of birth of the petitioner was incorrect. On this complaint, an inquiry was made and it was found that the date of birth of the deceased was 15th September, 1942 and, on that basis, the deceased would be deemed to have been retired upon reaching the age of superannuation in the year 2002 and, since the deceased died in 2007, no application for appointment on compassionate ground could be considered. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds, that the approach adopted by the respondent is perverse and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There is a basic flaw in the stand taken by the respondents. 6. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds, that the approach adopted by the respondent is perverse and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There is a basic flaw in the stand taken by the respondents. 6. Rule 3 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services Determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974, provides as under : “(3) The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination, or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into Government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion superannuation, pre-mature retirement or retirement benefits and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates, that the date of birth of a Government Servant would be made on the basis of High School Certificate or equivalent examination or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination, the date of birth or the age recorded in the Service Book at the time of his entry into Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service. 8. Admittedly, at the time of the entry into Government service, the deceased date of birth recorded in the Service Book was 15.9.1956, which entry is still standing even after the death of the deceased nor can it become a foundation for change in the date of birth on the basis of a School Leaving Certificate, which is not permissible under the Rules of 1974. Consequently, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is based on perverse reasoning. 9. The petitioner No. 1 father has died-in-harness and the Rules of 1974 will automatically come into place, the petitioner No. 1, being his son is a member of the family and is entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rules, of 1974. 9. The petitioner No. 1 father has died-in-harness and the Rules of 1974 will automatically come into place, the petitioner No. 1, being his son is a member of the family and is entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rules, of 1974. The petitioner No. 2, being the wife of the deceased had applied for service dues, namely, gratuity, pension, etc.. No orders have been passed. 10. Consequently, in the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with cost. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner No. 1 application for appointment on compassionate ground within six weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. The dues of the deceased and release of pension and gratuity etc. shall be processed and paid to the heir of the deceased within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the circumstances of the case, the Court computes the cost at Rs. 20,000/-, which shall be paid equally to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. 12. In the event, the cost is not paid, it would be open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the District Magistrate for its recovery, which will be recovered as arrears of land revenue. ——————