PRAMOD KUMAR RAJAK vs REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(All) 2655

[2011(9) ADJ 651]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SABHAJEET YADAV, J.
PRAMOD KUMAR RAJAK …Petitioner
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 148 of 2008, decided on 23rd September, 2011)

Advocates:
A.N. Srivastava, Sandeep Kumar and A.K. Singh for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Amit Sthalekar and Rajeev Gupta for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974—Rules 5, 5 Proviso, 6, 7 and 8—Appointment—Compassionate appointment—Dying-in-Harness—Law and scheme relating to—Summerized—Rule 5 deals with eligibility criteria, time limit and manner in which application for such appointment be made—Proviso to Section 5, contains conditions under which relaxation in time limit can be given—Section 6 specifies regarding contents of application, Section 7 speaks about situation when more than one member of deceased employee's family applies for appointment and Section 8 deals with procedural requirements etc.—In the instant case, deceased was peon in Court of District Judge, Sonebhadra—In such a case, Rules of 1974 are applicable but required to be applied with necessary modification—Instead of State Government, powers are to be exercised under direct control and supervision of High Court—As such, appointment is to done by District Judge—State Government cannot exercise its powers—Relaxation in minimum educational qualification and minimum age limit—Is not permisible—But other procedural requirements are relaxable.
        [Paras 18 to 24 and 30]
       (B) Appointment—Compassionate appointment—Payments of terminal dues, family pension, provident fund and other amounts to family of deceased, whether to be considered—Question of—While giving appointment authority considered is required to consider financial stringency and distress caused to family of deceased due to his sudden death—But while considering that financial crises, it is not open to authority concerned to take into account amounts to be paid to his family on account of terminal dues, family pension, provident fund and other beneficial funds—Consideration of these payments would render such appointment meaningless and frustrate object of appointment. [Para 24]
       (C) U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974—Rules 5 Proviso and 5—Limitation—Relexation of—Compassionate appointment—Employed in District Court—Leaving behind his wife, married daughter and three minor sons—His wife applied for appointment but as she was uneducated, was not eligible—Therefore, District Judge, refused her to give appointment, giving her option to apply for her son when he attains majority—Her elder son attained majority 4 days after expiry of limitation of 5 years contained in Rule 5—As such, when he applied for appointment, his application was barred by limitation—But High Court, in view of facts of this case and also keeping in view powers of relaxation in limitation contained in Proviso to Rule 5, found that his application was wrongly rejected on ground of its non-maintainability due to limitation—Setting aside that order, High Court found that his application was maintainable, as Proviso to Rule 5 applies, condoned delay and directed that he must be given appointment, by creating supernumerary post—Relevant legal aspects—Elaborated. [Paras 12, 18 to 24 and 30 to 34]

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Gupta Advocate for the respondents.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by District Judge, Sonebhadra contained in Annexure-7 of the writ petition, whereby the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner in Judgeship, Sonebhadra under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Dying in Harness Rules has been rejected. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for directing the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of peon under said Rules in Judgeship Sonebhadra.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that one Sri Gopi Chandra Rajak working as peon in the office of District Judge, Sonebhadra died on 1.6.2002 while in service, leaving behind him Smt. Munna Devi his widow, Smt. Anita Devi married daughter, Sri Pramod Kumar Rajak, Sri Rajesh Kumar Rajak and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Rajak minor sons. At the time of death of Gopi Chandra Rajak the petitioner was only 12 years 11 months and 6 days old and was not eligible to get appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, therefore, his mother Munna Devi moved an application on 31.7.2002 contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition, whereby she had sought her compassionate appointment on a suitable post under Dying-in-Harness Rules. Thereupon on the basis of report of 1st Additional District Judge, the District Judge, Sonebhadra (respondent No. 2) had passed an order on 9.12.2002, stating that under the recruitment rules educational qualification for Class 4th post is 8th class pass whereas Smt. Munna Devi has not at all received any education and under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, the educational qualification cannot be relaxed. It was also stated that the elder son of Smt. Munna Devi namely Pramod Kumar Rajak (petitioner) is near about 14 years old and after 4 years he will be eligible for such appointment hence two options were given to Smt. Munna Devi; first was that if Smt. Munna Devi insists for her appointment then the permission shall be taken from the Hon’ble High Court and second was that if she will like her son namely Pramod Kumar Rajak to be appointed as dependent of her husband his claim can be considered after completion of 18 years of his age on the expiry of 4 years only, accordingly she was asked to give her consent within 15 days. True copy of the order of respondent No. 2 dated 9.12.2002 is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition.

4. It is stated that in pursuant to the said order, Smt. Munna Devi moved an application before the respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2002 requesting that if she is not eligible for appointment as dependent of her husband then she gives her consent to appoint her son Sri Pramod Kumar Rajak, after completion of his 18 years age. Thereafter Smt. Munna Devi moved another application on 21.3.2006 as per direction of respondent No. 2 dated 9.12.2002 requesting to appoint her son (petitioner) as dependent of her husband when he would attain the age of majority i.e. 18 years by 5.6.2007. On 22.6.2006 the District Judge had passed an order on the said application directing to put up the same before him when the petitioner would attain the age of 18 years. A copy of said application moved by the mother of the petitioner bearing order dated 22.6.2006 passed by the District Judge, Sonebhadra is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition.

5. It is stated that on completion of his age of 18 years the petitioner has also moved an application on 3.7.2007 before the respondent No. 2 for his appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, annexing his High School pass mark sheet and High School certificate and other certificates including no objection certificate of his mother. Thereupon on the same day the District Judge directed the Incharge Officer Nazarat Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonebhadra to submi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(All) 2655

[2011(9) ADJ 651]ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTSABHAJEET YADAV, J.PRAMOD KUMAR RAJAK …PetitionerVersusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS ….Respondents(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 148 of 2008, decided on 23rd September, 2011)

Cases Referred (6)

[2011(9) ADJ 651]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SABHAJEET YADAV, J.
PRAMOD KUMAR RAJAK …Petitioner
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 148 of 2008, decided on 23rd September, 2011)