Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10800 of 2003 Petitioner :- Keshav Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar,C.M.Shukla,H.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.8.2002 and 27.8.2002 passed by the Government of U.P. and Special Officer (Establishment) Police Head Quarter, U.P.
2. By those orders, the claim for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner had been rejected. Solitary reason given in the aforesaid orders is that the petitioner's application cannot be considered since it was filed beyond period of five years from the date of occurrence of death of the petitioner's father.
3. Indisputably, the petitioner's father was a Head Constable who died on 29.5.1994 after natural cause/illness (Cancer). From the documents annexed with the writ petition which are also not denied, it appears the petitioner's mother first made an application to the S.S.P., Moradabad for grant of compassionate appointment to her son/petitioner. This application was sent by post. Then more importantly the petitioner's mother made a second application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner which is stated to have been received in the office of the S.S.P., Moradabad.
4. There are other documents annexed with the writ petition issued by the respondent-authorities which wholly corroborate the claim of the petitioner that the application for grant of compassionate appointment had been made within five years from the date of occurrence of death of the petitioner's father. In this regard, a letter dated 17.7.1999 issued by S.S.P., Moradabad to the C.M.O. Moradabad requiring the said authority to perform a medical examination of the petitioner for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment, has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. Another communication by the S.S.P. Moradabad dated 28.9.1999 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. That document specifically refers to an application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, dated 7.5.1997. Similarly, yet another communication issued by the S.S.P., Moradabad dated 23.3.2000 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition which again refers to an application dated 7.5.1997 filed by the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment.
5. Thus, there appears no doubt that the petitioner had filed application for grant of compassionate appointment on 7.5.1997, within 5 years from the occurrence of death of his father - 29.5.1994.
6. In view of such fact, the reasoning given in the impugned orders appears to be wholly incorrect and contrary to the admitted or undisputed facts.
7. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner could not be granted compassionate appointment on account of his own inaction inasmuch as he obtained a degree in B.A. course much later, beyond the period of five years and therefore his application was belated and it has been rightly rejected.
8. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties it is seen that indisputably the petitioner was entitled to claim compassionate appointment and it is further on record that the petitioner had filed that application within five years from the death of his father. It remained pending for more than five years and in the meanwhile on one hand the respondent authorities issued certain letters indicating that the petitioner's application was under active consideration of those authorities and on the other hand the petitioner completed his B.A. course, while that application remained pending.
9. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner subsequently started claiming compassionate appointment on a post commensurate to his educational qualification (acquired beyond five years), could not be cited as reason to hold that the application for compassionate appointment itself had been filed beyond five years from the occurrence of death. It was always open to the respondent authorities to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner or to allow the same to grant appointment to the petitioner commensurate to his education qualification as may have existed at the relevant time.
10. However, that application was dismissed with much delay, not on merits but on account of delay that was not attributable to the petitioner.
11. Though the death occurred in the year 1994 and we are in the year 2018, however, it is seen that in the first place the petitioner had filed his application within a period contemplated by the relevant rule/instruction and on the other hand the petitioner had promptly approached this court to challenge the the impugned orders in the year 2003 itself. However, the writ petition has remained pending for more than 15 years which nature of delay can never deprive the litigant to claim his rights as it is not attributable to him.
12 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 12.8.2002 and 27.8.2002 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. It is made clear, this court has not gone into the merits of the claim made.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Gaurav Pal