Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Shivam Kumar Dwivedi - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. Up and Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 6999 Of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Compassionate Appointment - Dying in Harness Rules - Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - The court discussed the purpose and object behind appointing persons of the deceased government employee on compassionate grounds, as well as the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The court also highlighted the exclusion of persons whose one of the parents is employed and the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 after the death of his mother, a government employee. His application was rejected based on Rule 5, which disqualifies the spouse of a deceased government servant from the benefit if they are employed by the Central or State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution in the family of the deceased employee. It held that the petitioner's claim was barred by Rule 5 as his father, also a government servant, had retired and was receiving pension, which would sufficiently support the family.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, considering the employment and pension status of his father.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the purpose and object behind compassionate appointment, as well as the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. It interpreted Rule 5 to exclude the petitioner from eligibility due to the pension received by his father.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no infirmity in the impugned order and holding that the petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Durgawati Dwivedi was working on the post of Senior Assistant in Government Polytechnic, Pratapgarh died in harness on 24.09.2021. She survived by her husband Sri Prem Kumar Dubey, one son (petitioner) and one daughter.
3. On death of Smt. Durgawati Dwivedi, the petitioner moved an application for appointment under dying in Harness Rules, 1974 claiming appointment on compassionate ground. His application has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by Director, Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh on the ground that the father of the petitioner, Prem Kumar Dubey was working in the Labour Department in Government of U.P. and has subsequently retired and is receiving pension from the State Government.
4. It has further been stated that in terms of rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules, it is provided that in case the spouse of the deceased Government servant is an employee of the Central Government or a State Government then he or she shall not not be eligible for the the benefit under the Dying Harness Rules, 1974.
5. Assailing the order dated 23.08.2022, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner is a retired employee and is no longer in employment and consequently Rule 5 of Dying Harness Rules, 1974 would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. He further submits that petitioner was totally dependent on his mother and was not dependent on his father and for the reasons also he has while assailing the order dated 23.08.2022 sought a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the very purpose of Rule 5 is that a person who is already in government service would be receiving remuneration from the State government and subsequent to his retirement would be receiving pension and consequently a legal heirs of such a person cannot be held to be the destitute so as to give the benefit of dying in Harness Rules.
7. He further submits that in various judgment of the Apex Court as well as by this Court, it has repeatedly been held that the purpose of Rules of 1974 are only provide succor to the immediate family of the sole bread earner who has died in harness so as to prevent destitution to the entire family. It is for this very purpose of Rule 5 of Rules, 1974, it is provided that in case the spouse is employed with the State or Central Government then such a person would not be eligible for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
8. It is stated that undoubtedly the father of the petitioner was a government servant and he has retired and presently receiving pension which should be sufficient to support him and his family and consequently no such claim can be made by the petitioner that the family has fallen into destitution.
9. He submits that Rule 5 should be purposely interpreted in such a manner so as not defeat the purpose of statute and hence submits that there is no infirmity in passing of the impugned order. He further submits that there is no material adduced by the petitioner to support the contention made by him in the petition.
10. I have heard rival contention of the parties.
11. It is noticed that the mother of the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Assistant in Government Polytechnic, Pratapgarh died in harness on 24.09.2021. The father of the petitioner was also a government servant and working in the Labour Department and admittedly he is receiving pension.
12. The petitioner moved an application under Rules of 1974 for compassionate appointment being the son of deceased government servant and his application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that his father was also in government service and his claim f
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financ....
Point of Law : As more than 30 years have passed since the father of the petitioner/appellant had expired, neither there is any useful purpose to issue any positive direction, nor the facts of the ca....
The definition of 'Government Servant' under the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974 does not include part-time employees, and judgments of other High Courts may only have persuasive value.
Compassionate appointment is not a right but a measure to assist families in financial distress, and is contingent on family employment status and compliance with rules.
Compassionate appointments must comply strictly with applicable rules, and delays in application negate claims for such appointments, emphasizing they are exceptions, not rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy regarding compassionate appointment and the applicability of subsequent amendments to the case of the petitioner.
Grant of compassionate appointment - Purpose of compassionate grounds appointments to tide over sudden crisis resulting from death of earner in a family. However reservation of a vacancy to enable su....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
