Allahabad High Court
Narsingh Rawat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 December, 2022
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23396 of 2014 Petitioner :- Narsingh Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Narain Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on any Class IV post in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia.
The brief of facts of the present case are that the mother of the petitioner namely Janki Devi was working as Class IV employee (Sweeper) in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia who died on 29.6.1999 in harness during service period. After the death of his mother, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules of 1974') before the Principal Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia on several occasions thereafter, Principal of the Institution forwarded the application of the Petitioner on 22.06.2002 to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia for consideration of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, which remain pending till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has completed all the required formalities for his compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974. however, the respondent-authorities did not give any response with regard to the same. It is further submitted that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but the delay on the part of the state-respondent, the petitioner was fulfilled all the conditions for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and Ors (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 936 of 2022) decided on 20th May, 2022.
On the other hand, learned Standing counsel submits that at the time of death, petitioner was minor and his age was 15 years, 4 four month and 16 days. It is next submitted that application of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground has been received in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia in the year-2020, there is no questions of delay on the part of the respondent authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools, District- Ballia. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1001; Govt. of India & Anr. Vs. P Venkatesh reported in 2019 (15) SCC 613 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin reported in Manu/SC/1151 of 2022 in which, it is held that appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of deceased employee shall not be entitled.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The mother of the petitioner died in harness on 26.9.1999 and at that time, age of the petitioner was 15 years four months and 16 days. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his mother on attaining the majority before the Principal of the Institution, who forwarded the said application along with the relevant records to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on 22.6.2002, which is apparent from the annexure no.3 to the counter affidavit. The annexure C.A.-2 filed along with counter affidavit is not the report/comment which was alleged to be sought from the Principal of the Institution on 26.9.2020, it is only information after filing the present writ petition and in the said letter, report was sought form the Principal of the Institution within one week which is apparent from the paragraph no.8 to the counter affidavit.
The letter of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 22.9.2020 is quoted as under:-
izs"kd] ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd cfy;kA lsok esa] iz/kkukpk;Z] vej 'kghn Hkxr flag b.Vj dkyst] jlM+k] cfy;kA i=kad@ 3626&27@2020&21 fnukad% 26@9@2020 fo"k;& ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr ;kfpdk la[;k&23396@2014 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-04-2014 ds vuqikyu gsrq vk[;k@vfHkys[k eakxs tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd Jh ujflag jkor iq= tkudh nsoh }kjk bl vk'k; dk vkosnu i= fn;k x;k gS fd mudh ekrk Jherh tkudh nsoh Lohij] fo|ky; esa dk;Zdky ds nkSjku gh mudh fnukad 26-06-1999 dks e`R;q gks x;hA Jh jkor }kjk viuh ekrk ds LFkku ij e`rd vkfJr dksVs ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr dh ekax dh x;h gS rFkk bl gsrq ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;kfpdk la[;k&23396@2014 Jh ujflag jkor cuke m0 iz0 ljdkj o rhu vU; esa fnukad 23-04-2014 dks ikfjr vkns'k layXu dj vko';d dk;ZOkkgh gsrq fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA ek0 mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 23-04-2014 dks ikfjr vkns'k fuEuor& Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 and 2 may file counter affidavit within a month. Petitioner will have two week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to respondent nos. 3 and 4 returnable within six weeks. Steps may be taken within a week. List after service of notice. vr% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 23-04-2014 ds [email protected] fuLrkj.k gsrq Jherh tkudh nsoh dh lsok vfHkys[k ls lEcfU/kr leLr i=tkr rFkk izdj.k vcrd yfEcr gksus dk dkj.k dk mYys[k djrs gq;s vuqiwjd vfHkys[kksa lfgr viuh vk[;k ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj bl dk;kZy; dk miyC/k djkus dk d"V djasa ftlls vxzsRrj dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsaA Hkonh;] g0 viBuh;
¼HkkLdj feJ½
ftyk fo|ky fujh{kd]
cfy;kA
26@9
i`0 la0@3626&27@2020&21 rn~fnukad
izfrfyfi& uj flag jkor Ikq= Lo0 tkudh nsoh lkfdu eqgYyk& mRkrjiV~Vh jlM+k cfy;k dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA g0 viBuh;
ftyk fo|ky fujh{kd] cfy;kA 26@9 In turn, Principal of the Institution replied to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia vide letter dated 17.11.2020, in which, it is stated that the then Principal namely Mohd. Baseer Ansari has already forwarded the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.6.2002 which is pending in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. The relevant portion of the letter dated 17.11.2020 forwarded by the Principal of Institution to the DIOS, Ballia is quoted as under:-
"mDr ds laca/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd Jherh tkudh nsoh bl fo|ky; esa prqFkZ deZpkjh ds :i esa Lohij ds in ij dk;Zjr FkhA lsokdky esa budh e`R;q fnukad 26-06-1999 dks gks x;hA fu;ekuqlkj Jherh tkudh nsoh dks e`R;q mijkUr ifjokfjd isa'ku vkfn buds ifr dk iwoZ esa gh e`R;q gksus ds dkj.k ugh fn;k x;k ysfdu e`rd vkfJr fu;ekuqlkj ds vuqlkj e`rd ds ikY; Jh ujflag jkor dk izLrko rRdkyhu iz/kkukpk;Z eq0 olhj valkjh }kjk e`rd vkfJr dksVs esa fnukad 22-06-2002 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k tks v|ru vkids ;gkW vfULrkfjr jgkA ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ ;gkW ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd Jh ujflag jkor }kjk dbZ ckj bl fo|ky; dks ,oa vkids dk;kZy; dks izR;kosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA fu;ekuqlkj e`rd ds dqVqEc ds ,d lnL; dks lsok ;ksftr djus dk izkfo/kku gSA fo|ky; esa ifj/kkjd ds dqy 15 dh tu'kfDr 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr gSA orZeku esa dqy 6 ifjpkjd dk;Zjr gSA bu 6 deZpkfj;ks esa Lohij ds in ij dksbZ dk;Zjr ,oa fu;qDr ugh gSA fo|ky; ds lkQ lQkbZ ,oa vko';drk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, Jh ujflag jkor dks lsok;ksftr fd;k tkuk laLFkk fgr es gksxkA vr% vkids vkns'k ds Øe esa Jh ujflag jkor dks e`rd vkfJr ds vUrxZr lQkbZ dehZ@ Lohij ds fjDr in ij p;u fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA** From the letter of the Principal, it is apparent that there is six posts of Class-IV employees, but no one is working on the post of Sweeper in the Institution.
It is apparent from the counter affidavit of the State that there was no fault or delay on the part of the petitioner and there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the petitioner should not be made to suffer.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (Supra) has held as under:-
"7. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all through out there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabvove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.
The judgment cited on behalf of the State is not applicable in the present case as there were a delay on behalf of the dependents of the deceased employee and the said judgment are not applicable in the present case.
In view of the above, discussions, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974 as per his application which was received in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on 22.6.2002 and if the petitioner is otherwise found to eligible to appoint him on the Class-IV in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia.
The aforesaid exercise should be completed by the concerned respondents within period of four weeks from today and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits from the date of his appointment only.
In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date:-23.12.2022 Akbar