JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father working as Constable in Civil Police of Uttar Pradesh died in a road accident on 17 th June, 1992. The petitioner after having obtained Intermediate Qualification sought for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying In Harness) Rules, 1974(hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) but vide impugned order dated 19th December, 2002 the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has rejected his claim only on the ground that the petitioner's father while unauthorizedly traveling by a Matador, met an accident, therefore his death cannot be said to have occurred in the course of employment and he is not entitled for any compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. He submits that the ground on which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected is totally non-est, illegal and contrary to the provision of 1974 Rules.
3. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that under 1974 Rules dependants of a deceased Government servant is entitled for appointment only when the death has occurred in the course of employment and therefore the order passed by Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is correct and does not warrant any interference.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question required for consideration is, whether 1974 Rules is applicable in the case in hand or not. Rule 3 of 1974 Rules provides that the said Rules shall apply to recruitment of dependants of deceased Government servant to public services and posts in connection with the State of Uttar Pradesh, except those, which are within the purview of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. Rule 4 gives overriding effect to the aforesaid Rules over any rule, regulation or order enforce at the commencement of 1974 Rules. Rule 5 is the substantive provision entitling the dependants of a deceased Government servant recruitment in Government service and reads as under:
5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:-(1) case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a Stale Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, he given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person:-
(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,
(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and
(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 anises 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.
(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules make it clear that the only thing relevant for application of the Rule is whether the deceased person was in the employment of the State Government or not. The term "Government servant" and "deceased Government" servant has also been defined under Rule 2(a) and 2(b) which reads as under:
2.(a) "Government Servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who-
(i) was permanent in such employment; or
(ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.
(b) "deceased Government servant" means a Government servant who dies while in service;
5. Thus a Government servant, if he is in service and die, is one who die in harness and dependent members of family are entitled for suitable employment under Rule 5 of 1974 Rules. The aforesaid Rule no where require that the death of the Government servant must occur while discharging duty in the course of employment. The only requirement under 1974 Rules is that the Government servant must be in service. It is not disputed that the petitioner's father when died in 1992, was in service, therefore, apparently the view taken by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is, incorrect and in the teeth of 1974 Rules. It appears that the aforesaid authority has not at all cared to look into 1974 Rules and has passed the impugned order under some misconception showing total non application of mind on his part. In a matter pertaining to compassionate appointment, this kind of exercise on the part of the competent authority shows total apathy and cannot be appreciated. The way in which the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has considered the ease of petitioner, has resulted in adding certain words in 1974 Rules i.e. "Government servant dying in harness while discharging duty in the course of employment" though the words "discharging duty in the course of employment" does not exist in the Rule The purpose of Rule is to mitigate the sudden crisis and hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of unexpected death while in service. Whether at the time of death he was discharging duties or was ill etc. and therefore died or for whatever other reason, is wholly irrelevant, since the purpose is to mitigate crisis suddenly occurred due to unexpected death of the sole bread earner. The only thing which has to be consider for application of 1974 Rules is whether the incumbent was in service or not. The learned Standing Counsel could not dispute this fact that the father of the petitioner was in service when met accident and died.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19.12.2002 is hereby quashed.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law. It is needless to say mat while considering the claim of the petitioner under 1974 Rules all other aspects would also be considered regarding the nature of appointment, the objective of compassionate appointment etc. and thereafter he shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
9. The competent authority shall take decision as directed above within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.