The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a purposeful interpretation of laws such as the Dying-in-Harness Rules and Section 108 of the Evidence Act to provide help to the family of the deceased government employee.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners father (late) Sheo Kumar Singh was a head constable in the police department. On 2nd December, 1987, while working at Lakhimpur Kheri, when the father of the petitioner had left for District Raebareilly, his whereabouts could not be ascertained by the authorities. A Criminal Case No. 244 of 1987 under Section 302/207, I.P.C. was registered. The apprehension was that he was being killed by some assailants at that time. A charge-sheet was filed under Section 364, I.P.C. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri in compliance of the Government order dated 27.12.1989 declared the father of the petitioner (late) Sheo Kumar Singh as deed and informed the Government by his letter dated 2nd of June, 2001, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

3. Wife of (late) Sri Sheo Kumar Singh has moved an application in July, 1995, with a statement that after lapse of 7 (seven) years of period, her husband shall deemed to be dead and accordingly, her eldest son being the dependent on his father may be given appointment on compassionate ground. Copy of the letter of wife of (late) Sheo Kumar Singh has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

4. In para 4 of the counter-affidavit, the reason for not giving appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been mentioned is that the persons who are not traceable for any reasons whatsoever, their dependant shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that by order dated 12.11.1987 (late) Sheo Kumar Singh was transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Raebareli and accordingly he was relieved on 2.12.1987. His brother has lodged on F.I.R. on 27.7.1988 under Section 302/291, I.P.C. against one Sri Brijesh Shukla and others that they have killed Sri Sheo Kumar Singh but the accused were acquitted on 6th of August, 1999 by competent court.

5. Wife of (late) Sheo Kumar Singh has submitted application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 9.11.1989 with the prayer that her eldest son, i.e., the petitioner may be appointed on compassionate grounds. The application of petitioners mother was rejected only on the ground that under dying-in-harness rules, the dependants of lost persons are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The grounds for refusal, at the face of the record, seems to be misconceived. Once the Superintendent of Police, himself by his order dated 2nd of June, 2001, has informed that on 27th December, 1989, that Sri Sheo Kumar Singh died and all the post retiral benefits were paid to his wife, then, there seems to be no justification for not allowing the benefits under Dying-in-harness Rules. A persual of the dying-in-harness rules notified on 7th October, 1974, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, at the face of the record, shows that the dependants of the family of the deceased Government servants shall be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. While interpreting the provisions contained under dying-in-harness rules, the purpose of the provisions should be kept in mind. In case, the benefit of the rules is not provided to the dependant of the employees who lost during the course of service even if they are declared dead by the authorities themselves, then the very purpose of the provision shall be deprecated. Honble Supreme Court in case in Easland Combines, Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, (2003) 3 SCC 410, has held as under:

"It is duty imposed on the Courts in interpreting a particular provision of law to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the Legislature and in doing so, they should presume that the provision was designed to effectuate a particular object or to meet a particular requirement. (Re Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand)."

6. Honble Supreme Court in another case in High Court of Gujarat and another