Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 615 (ALL)

Shivam Rajora v. State of U. P.

2024-02-27

PRAKASH PADIA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Madhav Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 8.2.2024 passed by the respondent No. 5. 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that petitioner, whose father late Kushal Pal Singh was Inspector/Company Commander in P.A.C. died in harness on 25.4.2014, however at that very point of time petitioner was minor so he did not apply for compassionate appointment. He, though became major in 2020 but on account of the entire nation especially the State of U.P. being hit by pandemic Covid-19, he could not make any proper application. Accordingly, he moved an application for the first time on 14.7.2023. 4. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ A No. 18591 of 2023 (Shivam Rajora v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of on 6.11.2023. The order dated 6.11.2023 reads as follows: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner, whose father late Kushal Pal Singh was Inspector/Company Commander in P.A.C., died in harness on 25.4.2014, however at that very point of time petitioner was minor so he did not apply for compassionate appointment. He, though became major in 2020 but on account of the entire nation especially the State of U.P. being hit by pandemic Covid-19, he could not make any proper application. Accordingly, he moved an application for the first time on 14.7.2023. It is submitted that the five year period has not expired since the petitioner has attained the age of majority and therefore, the respondents may by directed to consider his candidature for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and dispose of his pending application. Learned Standing Counsel though has raised objection regarding the time lapsed between 2014 to 2023 but in the considered view of the Court, petitioner's claim will be taken to have matured only in the year 2020. Learned Standing Counsel though has raised objection regarding the time lapsed between 2014 to 2023 but in the considered view of the Court, petitioner's claim will be taken to have matured only in the year 2020. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to look into and consider the claim of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment raised in his representation dated 14.7.2023 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in the event petitioner's claim is found to be genuine and petitioner is held entitled to compassionate appointment, he shall be offered compassionate appointment within the next 60 days time. Needless to add that the order to be passed by the respondent No. 2, as directed herein above, shall be reasoned and speaking one.” 5. After the aforesaid order was passed a representation was submitted by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent No. 5 vide order dated 8.2.2024 hence present writ petition. The representation was rejected only on the ground that no application form was submitted by the petitioner within five years of death of his father. 6. It is argued by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel that while disposing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner finding were recorded by this Court that the petitioner's claim will be taken to have matured only in the year 2020. It is further argued that aforesaid direction, which was given by this Court was not taken into consideration by the respondent No. 5 while rejecting the claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon sub-para 7 of paragraph 28 of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 , which reads as follows: “(vii) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the Government.” 7. It is further argued by learned Senior Counsel that power to relax the age is confined only with the State Government and the findings were recorded in the aforesaid judgement that where there is delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported documentary and other evidence, it is for the State Government to consider the matter for relaxation. In case it was found by respondent No. 5 that the application was not within five years he should refer the matter to the State Government. 8. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 9. From perusal of the record it is clear that the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected only on the ground that period of five years has already been lapsed from the date of death of bread earner. As per law laid down by this Court as quoted above in case there was a delay the respondent No. 5 in place of rejecting the case should refer the matter to the State Government. 10. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, order dated 8.2.2024 passed by the respondent No. 5 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and specially in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation before the respondent No. 2-Special Secretary/Joint Secretary, Home (Police), U.P. Lucknow or competent authority with the State Government within three weeks from today for granting relaxation in age regarding his appointment on compassionate ground. If such a representation is made within the time as prescribed above, the respondent No. 2/Competent Authority with the State Government will consider and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.