Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1881 (ALL)

Siddhu Mishra v. State of U. P.

2018-08-28

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, GOVIND MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is barred by limitation from 18 days. Ignoring the same we have considered the merits of the case. 2. This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the judgment dated 6.7.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 14446 of 2018. By the judgment impugned learned single Bench rejected the claim of the appellant petitioner to have appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the instant appeal is that Late Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, father of the appellant petitioner, died on 21.4.1995 while in service of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. At the time of death of Sri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra the appellant petitioner was a minor. On attaining majority he submitted an application to have appointment on compassionate ground as per Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 [as adopted by the respondent electricity company]. The claim of the appellant petitioner was rejected by the employer on the count that there was no undue hardship warranting relaxation in the time limit prescribed under the Rules. Suffice to mention as per Rules of 1974 the time limit prescribes to submit application to have appointment on compassionate ground is of 5 years. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant petitioner has preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. 4. In appeal the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant petitioner is that as per First Provision to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 the State Government if satisfied that 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. In the case in hand as per learned counsel the State Government failed to consider the undue hardship that was to be apparent. According to learned counsel the State Government has rejected the case of the appellant petitioner merely on the count of delay in submitting the application. 5. On going through the record we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. As already stated, at the first instance, the application of the appellant petitioner was considered by the employer in accordance with the Rules of 1974. 5. On going through the record we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. As already stated, at the first instance, the application of the appellant petitioner was considered by the employer in accordance with the Rules of 1974. The employer under an office memorandum dated 28.1.2013 noticed all necessary circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that no undue hardship is caused in the instant matter. According to the employer the appellant petitioner received all post death-cum-retiral benefits accruing as a consequence to death of his father and further he has also in receipt of family pension in accordance with the existing rules. As per applicable rules complete full pension shall be given to the appellant petitioner till attaining the age of 25 years and subsequent thereto if he remains out of employment, he shall be entitled to receive family pension in accordance with the ratio settled under the relevant pension rules. 6. It is also stated that after death of the deceased Government servant the appellant petitioner and his other family members supported themselves adequately and, as such, the harness that was existing in the year 1995 is no more in existence except its emotional aspects. The reasons mentioned by the employer were available to the State Government also and, therefore, the State Government by adopting the same rejected the claim of the appellant petitioner. 7. In our considered opinion the respondents examined the case of the appellant petitioner in accordance with the First Provision of Rule 5 of Rules of 1974 and that does not suffers from any wrong. Learned single Bench, as such, rightly rejected the petition for writ. No interference with the judgment passed by learned single Bench, as such, is desirable. Appeal, hence, is dismissed.