Point of Law : Rule 5 of U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 clearly bars the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinayak Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Director of the Social Welfare Department, U.P. rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his father Harish Chandra Arya was Deputy Director in Social Welfare Department and was posted at Bareilly Division, Bareilly. His father was declared a corona positive patient on 08.05.2021. He was admitted in Khushlok Hospital, Bareilly and died on 22.05.2021 due to Covid-19.

4. The Chief Secretary of State of U.P. issued an order/letter on 20.05.2021 addressed to the District Magistrates directing them to ensure that family members of the employees of health services, Police, Urban and Rural Administration and other Government Officers who are discharging their duties with dedication to fight with Covid-19 pandemic and had died while discharging their duties be immediately granted exgratia amount and one dependent of such employees be provided compassionate appointment as per rules. Accordingly, mother of the petitioner submitted an application on 03.06.2021 requesting that the petitioner be granted compassionate appointment. The respondent no.2 by order dated 22.07.2021 rejected the claim of petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on the ground that his mother is employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya which is governed and administered by Central Government.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the order dated 20.05.2021 issued by Chief Secretary, State of U.P. is explicit and provides that the dependent of deceased employee who had died due to Covid-19 is to be given compassionate appointment in place of deceased employee.

6. Elaborating the said argument learned counsel submits that the language used in Government Order dated 20.05.2021 is explicit and discloses the intention of the Government to give employment to the dependent of the deceased who died due to Covid-19. He further submits that if that was not the intention of the Government, there was no necessity of issuing Government Order dated 20.05.2021 as there was already U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 providing for compassionate appointment. He further submits that once the Government has framed a policy to provide employment to the dependent of the deceased employee who died of Covid-19, it is bound by the said policy and it is incumbent upon the Government to scrupulously adhere to the Government Order dated 20.05.2021. It is further contended that the notification no. 6/XII/73/ Ka-2-T.C-IV dated 22.01.2014 shall be deemed to have been superseded by the order dated 20.05.2021 issued by Chief Secretary, State of U.P. in respect to the employees who died of Covid-19.

7. Per- contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that the object of issuing the Government Order dated 20.05.2021 is to provide immediately ex-gratia payment and compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased employee who died of Covid-19 as per rules without any delay. He submits that the order dated 20.05.2021 provides that the dependent of the deceased employee should be given compassionate appointment as per rules immediately. He submits that the intention behind issuance of order dated 20.05.2021 to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased employee died of Covid-19 without any delay since such an employee had dedicated his life to fight with the menace of Covid-19 pandemic. He submits that if the rules permits only then the dependent of the employee is to be provided employment on compassionate ground. He submits that Deputy Secretary of State of U.P. wrote a letter addressed to the Director Social Welfare clarifying that if the case of the petitioner falls within Rule 5 of not