SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 1648

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S. Rafat Alam and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Sushila Devi, Late Sri Shivgovind Kushwaha Paricharak, Govt. Girls
Versus
District Collector
Special Appeal 1056 of 2005
Decided On : 06 September 2005
Special Appeal 1056 Of 2005

Advocates:
AVNISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AWANISH VERMA, NEERAJ KANTA VERMA,

The interpretation of the word 'afternoon' in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules and the eligibility for compassionate appointment depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the hardship faced by the family due to the death of the government servant.

Headnote:

Retirement - Interpretation of Rule 56(a) of Fundamental Rules - [Rule 56(a)] - The court discussed the interpretation of the word 'afternoon' as used in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules and concluded that for the purpose of retirement of a government servant, the time 'afternoon' has to be construed as a time after noon till the end of the day (12 P.M.). The court held that the employee died while he was in service as his death occurred on the last day of his retirement, during the period from 12 noon till 12 P.M.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant's husband, a government servant, died on the day of his retirement, and the appellant claimed compassionate appointment for her son under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim, stating that the death occurred after the husband's retirement disentitling any claim under the 1974 Rules. The appellant challenged this decision before the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court interpreted the word 'afternoon' as used in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules and concluded that the employee died while he was in service. The court also held that the claim for compassionate appointment was not made out as the family was not put to any sudden financial crisis which required giving compassionate appointment to the son of the appellant.

Issues: Interpretation of the word 'afternoon' in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules, and the eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Ratio Decidendi: The word 'afternoon' as used in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules has to be construed as a time after noon till the end of the day (12 P.M.). The claim for compassionate appointment depends on the facts of each case and the hardship to which a family is exposed by the death of the person.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the judgment of the learned single Judge, as the claim for compassionate appointment was not made out.

S. RAFAT ALAM, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Neeraj Kant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been filed, under the rules of the Court, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 4th August, 2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts, necessary for deciding this appeal, are; the husband of the appellant, Shivgovind kushwaha, who was working as Class-IV employee at Government Girls Higher Secondary school, Vijainagar, Kanpur Nagar, was to retire of 31st May, 2003, which was his date of retirement as per Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Sri Shivgovind Kushwaha died on 31st may, 2003 at 7. 10 P. M. After the death of Sri Shiv Govind Kushwaha, compassionate appointment was claimed by the appellant under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 for her son and also a claim was raised for extra ordinary pension. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6651 of 2005 was filed by the appellant, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14th february, 2005 permitting the appellant to make a representation to the District Inspector of schools which was directed to be decided by a reasoned order. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 14th February, 2005, the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 9th May, 2005 rejected the claim of the appellant for giving compassionate appointment to her son as dependent of deceased employee. The District Inspector of Schools in the order held that late shivgovind Kushwaha was retired in the afternoon of 31st May, 2003 and since the office hour is 10 A. M. to 5 P. M. , the death occurred after the office hour, i. e. , after his retirement disentitling any claim under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules ). The order of district Inspector of Schools was challenged by the appellant before this Court. Learned single judge by the impugned judgment also took the view that death having occurred in the evening at 7. 10 P. M. , which is after the retirement of the appellants husband in the afternoon, no claim is made out for compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. Learned single Judge referring to rule 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules took the view that the said rule provides that a Government servant shall retire from service in afternoon of the last day of month in which he attains the age of superannuation. The learned single Judge was also of the view that the meaning of the word "afternoon" cannot be extended to evening and thereafter to midnight. Learned single Judge held that death of the appellants husband had taken place in the evening at 7. 10 P. M. which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as afternoon.

( 4 ) SRI Neeraj Kant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the judgment, submitted that view of learned single Judge is erroneous. He contended that 1974 Rules provides for giving benefit to the dependent of Government servant who died during service period (Sewakal) and the appellants husband died on the day of retirement, i. e. , during his service period, hence the claim under 1974 Rules was fully maintainable. Learned counsel contended that word "afternoon" used in Rule 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules is the period from noon to midnight and the death at 7. 10 P. M. was at the time when the husband of the appellant was in service. Learned counsel further contended that since the benefit under Group Insurance Scheme was given and the appellant has also been paid necessary amount under the said scheme, which covers the employee who died while in service, it clearly meant that appellants husband was treated to have died during service. Learned counsel also relied on definition of word "afternoon" as given in Blacks Law dictionary.

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top