Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11481 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The instructions supplied by the learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in place of the deceased employee has been rejected on the ground that the widowed daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) of U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as "the Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974).
Admitted facts of the matter on record as placed by both the parties indicate that the petitioner's father-in-law had died on 22.12.1999. The petitioner's husband i.e. son of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment as early as on 2.3.2000. For a period of four years, his claim was not processed. As per own admission of the respondent in the instructions supplied today, on 13.2.2004, the petitioner's husband was called upon to appear in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police for character/document verification. A copy of the letter dated 13.2.2004 issued from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad is at page '17' of the paper book, which indicates that the petitioner's husband was called upon to appear in his office but no fix date was given to him. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner's husband had unfortunately met an accident on 29.5.2004 and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
After death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on the premise that in case, the petitioner's husband would have been granted appointment in time, she would have a right to be considered being dependent of the deceased employee. As the claim of the petitioner's husband for grant of compassionate appointment has not been processed for a period of four years and an unfortunate and unforeseen incident had occurred in the life of the petitioner, it cannot be said that she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected being daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, as her husband was found fit for grant of compassionate appointment.
In view of the said circumstances brought before this Court which are admitted by the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of claim of the petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2017 is not in the spirit of the object and aim of the Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974.
The Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 have been framed in order to provide relief to the dependents of the deceased employee who dies in harness. The idea is that on account of death of the sole bread earner, the family of the deceased employee may not suffer financial crisis and some relief may be granted to them to overcome the same.
In the instant case, the delay in consideration of claim of the petitioner's husband was at the instance of the respondents and even otherwise, he was found eligible for employment on compassionate ground. In case, the son of the deceased employee i.e. petitioner's husband would have been engaged in time, she would fall in the category of the dependant of the deceased employee being his wife. On account of the unforeseen situation of death of her husband i.e. son of the deceased employee, it cannot be said that his claim for compassionate appointment would stand frustrated or deemed to be abandoned.
For the above noted reasons, this court finds that the reasons given in the order dated 18.12.2017 to reject the claim of the petitioner are not tenable.
This apart, the assertion in the instructions that no post which would be categorise under the quota of Dying-in-Harness Rules is available in the cadre of Constable (M), cannot be made basis to reject the request of the petitioner to consider her claim, inasmuch, there has been no consideration to the circumstances being faced by the petitioner. Moreover, compassionate appointment can be granted on any other appropriate vacant post existing in the department, commensurate to the qualifications possessed by the petitioner.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while setting aside the order dated 18.12.2017, the present writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Allahabad, to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment a fresh under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
An expeditious decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken preferably within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order under due intimation to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Brijesh