Allahabad High Court
Farman vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 794 of 2023
Petitioner :- Farman
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar/respondent no.3.
By the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the claim was set up for appointment on compassionate ground after 16 years of the death of the bread earner. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 43 of 2019 (Amar Parasher vs. State of U.P. and others). He placed reliance upon paragraph-22 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as follows;-
"22. This Court must remark that if the delay of years and months by numerical figure alone were the only factor to be considered, there might have been no reason for the first proviso to Rule 5(1) of the 1974 Rules being there, envisaging relaxation in the period of time, prescribed by the 1974 Rules. It must also be remarked that if the Secretary had carefully looked into either of the two reports dated October 21, 2016 or the earlier one dated July 22, 2014, it was not difficult to miss the fact that the writ petitioner in making his claim for compassionate appointment had to wait for two decisive events, to wit, attaining the age of majority and completing his education. It is not disputed that for a compassionate appointment, it is not the age of majority alone that entitles one for consideration. The necessary educational qualification too have been acquired. No doubt, the two inquiry reports dated July 22, 2014 and October 21, 2016 do not indicate what educational qualification the writ petitioner acquired and on what date after which he applied, a little sensitive handling of the claim by the Secretary would have led him to find out when the writ petitioner earned his essential eligibility educational qualifications. Perhaps, that would explain the delay that the Secretary has numerically counted to deny the writ petitioner relaxation in the prescribed period of time for making a claim. We must observe that the circumstances of the family that have come on record show that the deceased has an old mother, the widow and a daughter, of which this Court took due note in the judgment and order dated August 20, 2016 passed earlier, which has not at all been considered by the Secretary. There is a remark in the judgment dated August 20, 2016 that there are three female dependents of the deceased, including his old mother and the family have no other source of income, except the meager pension of ?10,346/-."
On the basis of the aforesaid, it is argued that the power to condone the delay is based upon the Rules framed in this regard in the year 1974 namely the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. He also placed reliance upon the first proviso of Sub-Rule-3 of Rules 5 of the aforesaid Rules, which reads as follows:-
"(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."
It is argued that after taking into consideration the aforesaid Rules, the judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case namely Amar Parasher (Supra). Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the Government order dated May 4th, 2022, copy of which is appended as Annexure-15 to the writ petition.
In this view of the matter, it is argued that prima facie case for appointment on the compassionate ground has been made out but without taking into consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the claim set up by the petitioner was rejected.
This fact has not been denied by the learned Standing Counsel.
In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned was passed without taking into consideration of the relevant rules as quoted above as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Amar Parasher (Supra).
In view of the same, an order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar/respondent no.3 is liable to be set aside, the same is hereby set aside.
Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation in this regard ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.1 within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is made within the time indicated herein-above, the respondent no.1 is directed to take a decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023
Swati
