The interpretation of 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee, and the superior qualification of the dependent cannot determine the scope of 'suitable employment.'

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. The father of the appellant who was working as Class-IV employee (Sweeper) at the Office of Vikas Khand Khutam, Jaunpur, U.P. passed away on 23.11.2016. An application came to be made by the appellant for being appointed under Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1974’). Rule 5 reads as follows:

“5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:

(1) In 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 State 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 purposes, be 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.

(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 causes 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.

5A. Recruitment of member of the family of Police/P.A.C. Personnel who dies in May, 1973 - Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary contained in Rule 5 or in any other rule, the provisions of these rules shall apply in the case of members of the family of twenty-two police or per Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel who died as a result of disturbances in May, 1973, as they apply in the case of a Government servant during dying in harness after the commencement of these rules.”

3. The appellant is a graduate and also got computer literacy. He was offered a post of Sweeper, the post which was held by his late father. However, the appellant being so advised rejected the offer and did not join and gave his representation by which he expressed his disinclination to join, which effectively means that he rejected the offer. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Court which directed consideration of his representation. The respondents again rejected the request to accommodate the appellant in a Class-III post. It must be noted that the appellant specifically sought to be appointed as Gram Panchayat Officer, a post which is borne on the cadre of Class-III post. There is no dispute that the said post does not come within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission contemplated under Rule 5. Therefore, the Rule in this regard was not an obstacle to the claim of the appellant. However, the respondents rejected the representation in keeping with their understanding of the words “suitable employment” in Rule 5. This again generated another writ petition. It is the said writ petition which finally culminated in the High Court holding against the appellant.

4. We heard Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State of U.P.

5. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court essentially premised its judgment on the basis of the view take