Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1348 (ALL)

Ashish Chaturvedi v. Union of India Thru Secy.

2019-05-16

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRAKASH PADIA

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Tripathi and Sri D.P. Singh for the petitioner in both the petitions, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. The dispute in both the petitions relates to the allotment of dealership for LPG at the Sirsaganj, disrict Firozabad in U.P. The petitioner was one of the candidates for the said dealership in the category of Government Personnel (GP) pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2011 published in daily news-paper Dainik Jagaran. 3. The Sales Officer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vide letter/order dated 19.8.2013 in regard to the petitioner's application for award of LPG Distributorship informed him that his certificate of GP category received through his representation was got verified from the issuing authority and it was found that his father was not on duty at the time of death and that the said certificate was not issued by the said authority. The above letter/order has been challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No.49306 of 2013. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, an order was passed by the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 3.1.2014 cancelling the selection of the petitioner for the grant of above LPG dealership as the petitioner does not fall in the category GP and that the certificate to that effect submitted by him on verification is not found to be genuine. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3382 of 2014. 5. It may be pertinent to point out that by the guidelines issued for the selection of Regular LPG Distributorship specific eligibility criteria has been laid down for different categories of applications of the individuals viz. (a) Open Category (O); (b) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Category (SC/ST); (c) Government (Central & State) and Public Sector Units (Central & State) (GP) and (d) Combined Category (CC) which includes Physically Handicapped (PH) and Outstanding Sports Persons (OSP). 6. The category “Government (Central & State) and Public Sector Units (Central & State)” i.e. (GP) includes Defence Personnel and Government and Public Sector Personnel. 6. The category “Government (Central & State) and Public Sector Units (Central & State)” i.e. (GP) includes Defence Personnel and Government and Public Sector Personnel. The said category is for the personnel serving in different departments of the Central/State Government and Public Sector Undertakings of Central/State Government who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties and includes the widows and the dependants of such personnel who died while performing their duties. The relevant Guidelines regarding Government and Public Sector Personnel applying under the said category as contained in the Guidelines reads as under: “Government and Public Sector Personnel The personnel serving in different Departments of Central/State Governments and Public Sector undertakings of Central/State Government who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties will be eligible under this category. In case of death while performing duties, their widows/dependants will be eligible to apply under this category.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The petitioner in applying under the said category claimed that his father late Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi was in service of the State Bank of India at the time of his death and, as such, he is eligible to apply as his dependant. In support, he relied upon certificate dated 16.2.2011 of the Manager of the Bank certifying that his father was a Clerk/Cashier and at the time of his death he was in service of the Bank. The other certificate relied upon by him is again by the Manager of the Bank dated 7.6.2012 certifying that the petitioner as per the record was dependant of late Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi who was working with the Bank and died on 12.12.2002. 8. The Bank in the counter affidavit has clearly stated that the father of the petitioner was posted in in the Kuraoli Branch of district Mainpuri since 15.01.1990 till his death on 12.12.2002. He was on leave due to illness since 23.11.2002 till his death. On the date of death he was in employment of the Bank but he had not died in the course of performing official duties of the Bank. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that the father of the petitioner was in service of the Bank and died during the employment leaving the petitioner as dependant. It is also admitted that at the time of his death though he was in service of the Bank but was on leave and had died a natural death. 9. There is no dispute to the fact that the father of the petitioner was in service of the Bank and died during the employment leaving the petitioner as dependant. It is also admitted that at the time of his death though he was in service of the Bank but was on leave and had died a natural death. 10. Apart from other things, one of the grounds for rejecting the candidature for selection of the petitioner for the LPG Dealership is that he cannot apply under the category GP as his father had not died while performing his duties. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, counsel for the parties are in agreement that the only issues which needs adjudication is whether the father of the petitioner died while performing duties so as to entitle the petitioner to apply in the GP category. 12. The submission of Sri Shashi Nandan is that since the father of the petitioner was in service and had died during the course of his employment, the petitioner would be eligible for applying under the said category. 13. Sri Budhwar, on the other hand, contends that it is not the death of the father of the petitioner while in service or employment, rather death while performing duties which will bring the petitioner within the eligibility criteria under the GP category. 14. The use of the words “while performing duties” is material and important. The Guidelines do not use the words “while in employment or in service” or “arising out of and in the course of his employment”. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the use of the phrase “while performing duties” or the use of the phrase “while in employment or service” or “in the course of employment”. The said departure in use of the language or the phrase is not casual but deliberate and with some purpose. 15. The use of phrases “while in service or employment” or “during the course of employment” or “arising out of employment” would have different connotations then the phrase “while performing duties”. The use of the earlier three phrases would include within its ambit the death of a person at any time during the service tenure or employment. However, the use of the phrase “while performing duties” narrows down the ambit and confines it to the death occurring while performing duties in relation to service or employment. The use of the earlier three phrases would include within its ambit the death of a person at any time during the service tenure or employment. However, the use of the phrase “while performing duties” narrows down the ambit and confines it to the death occurring while performing duties in relation to service or employment. Therefore, the death of a person while performing duties is necessary for the dependant to apply under the category GP. 16. Generally, the duties of a person does not commence until he reaches the place of his employment/service and does not continue after he has left his place of employment or service. It is well settled that if a person is on a public road or public place or on a public transport or even in his house or at any place other than his place of employment or service and is not moving or working in the course of his employment, he is just like any other member of the public and not a person performing his duties of service or employment. 17. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner had died a natural death while he was on leave and was not performing his duties. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or illegality in the rejection of the candidature/selection of the petitioner for the LPG distributorship in the category GP. 19. Accordingly, the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.