Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8815 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mangal And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Sengar,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sant Ram Sharma
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.03.2020, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the father of the petitioner died on 08.02.2014. After his death an application was moved by the petitioner no. 2, the widow, for appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner no. 1 also made a request for appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of petitioner no. 1 gave a letter that the candidature of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was called upon for furnishing the documents with regard to the service of the father of the petitioner, which the petitioner did in the year 2018. However, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioners was rejected on 13.03.2020.
A perusal of the said order discloses that the application has been rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was used to remain absent from the job and continued to remain absent from the year 1995 up to 2014 when the father of the petitioner died. It is apparent from the said order that a notice was served upon the father of the petitioner no. 1 on 19.08.1996 to show cause as to why, in absence from duty, your services may not be dismissed. In light of the same, the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the father of the petitioner no. 1 used to remain absent, however, there is no averment that any termination order was passed against the father of the petitioner no. 1 or he discontinued as employee of the respondents. The Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 defines a government servant under Rule 2(a).
In view of the fact that there is admission that the father of the petitioner no. 1 was an employee of the respondents and there being no termination order passed against him, stand taken by the respondents that the father of the petitioner no. 1 used to remain absent from service cannot be accepted.
Once the father of the petitioner no. 1 came within the definition of government servant, as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, application of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment in accordance with law without taking into account the conduct of the father of the petitioner no. 1 while he was in service.
Accordingly, the order dated 13.03.2020 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order treating the father of the petitioner no. 1 as a government servant in service. The decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment shall be made in accordance with the mandate of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 with all expedition, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of a copy of this order.
The petition stands disposed of in terms of the same.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Pkb/