Allahabad High Court
Anjali Awasthi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / ... on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7969 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anjali Awasthi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Lalendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father, namely Sri Jagdish Prasad Pandey, who was working on the post of jeep Driver in Bal Vikas Pariyojana, Maharajganj, District Raebareli, died during service on 28.9.2016 leaving behind his widow (mother of the petitioner), three married daughters (including the petitioner) and one son. It is submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified having completed intermediate and having appeared in B.A. final year Examination and accordingly moved appropriate application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It is stated that the petitioner being married daughter of the deceased government servant her candidature was not considered at that relevant point of time and consequently she approached this Court by filing writ petition A No.4368 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court relying upon the judgment of Full Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Writ C No.60881 of 2015 and directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. It is in pursuance of the directions of this Court passed in writ petition A No.4368 of 2022 that the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2022 has been passed.
3. While assailing the order dated 3rd October, 2022 it has been submitted that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Shashi Prabha was working on the post of Mukhya Sevika under the State Government and retired on 31.7.2019. It has been recorded that according to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 in case a person whose spouse is in government employment of the State of Central Government or under any other State undertaking would not be eligible to seek compassionate appointment. It is stated that the bar imposed in Rule 5 squarely applies to the present case and consequently the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is quoted as under:-
"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 and the spouse of the deceased Government servant 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, 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 on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-
(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,
(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and
(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the 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 far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.]"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing severe hardship and placed reliance upon the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who dies in harness, is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submitted that specif bar has been imposed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the said Rule. It is stated that at the time of death of petitioner's father his mother was in the employment of the State Government working on the post of Mukhya Sevika and consequently the petitioner is not entitled for being appointed under the Rules of 1974. He further submits that the said rules are to be interpreted strictly as held by the Apex Court in various judgments including the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata, Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 (decided on 05.10.2021) Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2022 (decided on 02.08.2022) and consequently supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is noticed that admittedly the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.9.2016 and at the time of his death his wife was working on the post of Mukhya Sevika and superannuated only after nearly three years i.e. on 31.7.2019. It is further noticed that according to Rule 5 the legal heirs of a person whose spouse is under the employment of the State Government or Central Government are not entitled for being appointed under Dying in Harness Rules. It is further noticed that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the exclusionary clause of the Rules of 1974 and, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. No other point has been urged.
8. In light of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
