A candidate selected for public employment who dies before the issuance of the appointment letter and before joining service is not considered a government servant; consequently, their dependents are not entitled to compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness rules.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment due to the death of the petitioner’s husband, prior to the appointment letter was issued, was rejected. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued in October 2018 for selection of the post of Constables through direct recruitment in Civil Police as well as PAC, the husband of the petitioner has applied and qualified the written test and has appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test held on 29.12.2019 and later, in the medical examination, which was held on 07.03.2021 and thereafter the select list was also published in which the husband of the petitioner was declared selected. However, before the appointment letter was issued on 05.06.2021, the husband of the petitioner has died on 30.04.2021.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner herein had applied for compassionate appointment in view of the selection of the petitioner as constable and finally, the appointment letter was issued in favor of the husband of the petitioner on 05.06.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was finally selected and there was delay in the selection process which started in 2018, had the selection process been completed prior in time, the husband of the petitioner would have joined as constable before his death and consequently, he would have been the Government servant. As such, the petitioner would have been entitled for claiming the compassionate appointment being dependent of such Government servant. However, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has erroneously been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr vide impugned order dated 09.11.2021. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the interim order dated 25.04.2013, passed in Vandana Devi vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors. (Writ-A No. 22449 of 2013) and the final order passed in Moni Devi vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Writ-A No. 4216 of 2014) on 07.02.2018, reported in 2018 (5) ADJ 456.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to such delay in issuing the appointment letter, in the identical circumstances where the candidates have died, their dependents have been given appointment on compassionate basis by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner claims the parity with the aforesaid judgments and claims that the petitioner be also granted the similar benefit and given appointment on compassionate basis.

8. Per contra, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that in the instant case, before the husband of the petitioner borne in service and the appointment letter issued to him, he has died. In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination he can be treated as a Government servant for any purpose whatsoever though. Even if a candidate participates in the selection process, selected final appointment letter is issued, till he joins, he cannot be treated as a Government servant. Therefore, the benefit of U.P. Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 or the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Services Rules, 2015 would not be applicable to the dependents of such candidates, thus, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner.

9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State further submits that the interim order in Vandana Devi (supra) as well as the final order in Moni Devi (supra), was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, whe