IMPORTANT POINT
When State takes a conscious decision to relax rules and continues the situation for 15 years, the relaxation, even if by mistake, would be deemed to have been condoned.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 758 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 08.11.2010 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5713 of 2006 in which it was held that the appellant being the brother of the deceased was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. His services were, therefore, terminated on this ground.

3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:

4. One Mohd. Rashid Alam, who was working as a Constable in District Police Force, was killed while on security duty. He left behind his illiterate wife and four minor children. Since there was no one in the family to support the widow and the minor children, the widow of the deceased submitted a petition to the State (Police Department) enclosing an affidavit giving assurance by the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, that he would support the widow and the minor children of the deceased constable if he is given appointment. Accordingly, Memo No. 1267/P-02 dated 29.02.1991 was issued by the Director General of Police to appoint the appellant. Vide D.O. No. 1248/91, the appellant was appointed as constable w.e.f. 02.05.1991 after being declared medically fit on the post of Constable in the scale of 950-20-1150-25-1400.

5. Thereafter the appellant successfully completed his recruits training course and since then he had been performing satisfactory duties in various districts and also taking care of the illiterate widow and four children of the deceased constable. The appellant also, in the meantime, got married two daughters of the deceased constable.

6. After 15 years of service, on 04.06.2005, the appellant received a show cause notice from the senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. In the show cause notice, it was stated that why the appellant’s services be not terminated because he being a “devar (brother of deceased)” was not included in the definition of dependent of the deceased and hence was not eligible to claim compassionate appointment in the State services.

7. On 10.06.2005, the appellant gave his explanation and stated that ever since his appointment in February 1991, he has been looking after the widow and four children of the deceased constable. He gave them education and still maintaining the family of deceased as Head of the family. He also explained that his dismissal, after 15 years of satisfactory duty, would cause undue hardship to the widow and family of the deceased constable because even as on today, there is no earning member in the family.

8. The senior Superintendent of Police, Patna did not accept the explanation offered by the appellant and terminated the services of the appellant on 23.06.2005 holding his appointment on compassionate ground to be illegal and against the policy.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police on 01.08.2005.

10. Since the appeal was not decided by the Inspector General of Police, the appellant filed petition being Writ Petition No. 5713 of 2006 before the High Court for quashing the order of termination passed by the senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with a further prayer to reinstate him with all consequential benefits or in the alternative to direct the authorities to decide the appeal filed by him. By order dated 08.11.2010, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. It was held that it was a case of a mistake committed by the authorities while giving such benefit to the appellant and hence this is a fit case for termination of appellant’s services.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal being L.P.A. No. 758 of 2013. By order dated 20.12.2013, the Division Bench upheld the orde