Mani Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6027 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mani Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 11 March, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14939
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5975 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Mani Ram
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Kalhans
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishi Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Kuldeep Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Manish Barnwal, Advocate holding brief for Shri Rishi Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Shri Ram Moorat was working on the post of Beldar in the Public Works Department and he died on 10.10.2013 while in service. On the death of his father, the petitioner being the eldest son of late Ram Moorat, with the consent of his mother and his younger brother Mauj Ram, applied under the Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 for being granted compassionate appointment. The said application was to be considered by the Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Gonda and as no decision was taken by him, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner bearing Service Single No.271 of 2014.

3. During pendency of the said petition, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and appointed him on 21.05.2014 under Dying In Harness Rules. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, his younger brother namely Mauj Ram preferred a complaint against his appointment stating that the petitioner Mani Ram lives separately from the family and is not supporting the family, consequently, prayed for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner preferred by his younger brother Mauj Ram, that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by means of order dated 10.06.2014.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the cancellation of his appointment on 10.06.2014, preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Service Single No.3178 of 2014, which was decided on 04.12.2015 and the order of cancellation was set aside remanding the matter to opposite party to pass a fresh order after making necessary enquiries. It was observed that there were rival claimants for appointment on Dying In Harness and authorities had already only considered the case of the petitioner ignoring the claim of Mauj Ram and consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the order of appointment as well as order of cancellation was set aside and the matter was again remanded the matter to pass a fresh order.

5. In compliance of the directions of this Court vide order dated 04.12.2015 the order dated 12.04.2016 was passed again rejecting the application of the petitioner solely on the ground that all the family members have not given any affidavit for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court yet again challenging the order dated 12.04.2016 in Writ A No.17957 of 2016. This Court allowed the writ petition and noticing the provisions of Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as well as judgment of Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (D& PB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwari and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 and also the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein the Court was of the view that the authorities have not discharged their obligations as per Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and the decision has been taken without considering the material on record and accordingly, directed the Superintending Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Gonda to revisit the aspect of compassionate appointment considering rival claims of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.5, strictly in accordance with the Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

6. It is in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2023 passed in Writ A No.17957 of 2016 that the opposite party revisited their order and passed the impugned order dated 10.04.2024. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the only ground for rejection of the representation of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his brother could not produce any order or statement or any affidavit of the family members in favour of either of them in order to get appointed on compassionate ground and consequently has held that in the aforesaid circumstances it is not possible to consider the claim of compassionate appointment for either of the brothers and on this ground alone the representation has been rejected.

7. It is also noticed that as per Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 powers cast upon the competent authority to take a decision with regard to the appointment of any of the legal heirs for compassionate appointment looking into the suitability of the person which shall be taken keeping in view the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof. There is no provision which says that it is only when the entire family, including the widow, gives a written consent or affidavit, then only the appointment can be made in exercise of power under Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It is a discretionary power of the competent authority to consider the relevant material on record and after considering the material on record he has to decide in favour of one of the applicants who will be in a position to fulfill the mandate of Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which is that the person concerned in whose favour the order is passed should look into the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and minor members thereof. Merely because the family members do not come to a settlement will not absolve the competent authority from exercising the jurisdiction under Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

8. It is then noticed that in the present litigation there has been numerous interferences made by this Court, the details of which has been discussed herein above, where in all the orders passed by this Court directions have been issued to the competent authority to pass an order in accordance with law specifically taking into account the provisions of Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

9. The respondent on the other hand on each of the occasion have failed to take a decision in terms of Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and have not returned any finding with regard to the conditions prescribed therein where there were under a mandate to take a decision whether to appoint the petitioner or his younger brother on compassionate grounds and which of the two would fulfill the mandate provided under the Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

10. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has to repeatedly approach this Court where the petitions have been allowed and disposed of directing the respondents to take a decision as per provisions of Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances with deep regret we notice that the opposite party no.3 has not complied with the directions of this Court and has not come to a conclusion looking into the material on record and returning his finding in favour of anyone of the brothers.

12. Accordingly, even in the impugned order the respondents have failed to comply with the directions of this Court dated 31.10.2023 and they have not passed a reasoned and speaking order, as directed by this Court, in accordance with the Rule 7 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

13. Considering the fact that the respondents have repeatedly defied passing of appropriate order in the light of directions passed by this Court, I remand the matter yet again to respondent no.3- Superintending Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department, Gonda to pass necessary orders in light of Rule 7 of the Dying In Harness Rules, 1974, after considering the various conditions laid therein in favour of either of the two brothers, whom they find suitable for the appointment.

14. Let necessary orders be passed within four weeks, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.5.

15. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the author of the order dated 10.04.2024.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 11.3.2025

Arnima