Allahabad High Court
Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. ... vs Jitendra Pratap Singh Son Of Late Shri ... on 3 January, 2008
Author: H.L. Gokhale
Bench: H.L. Gokhale, Vineet Saran
JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh in support of this appeal. Sri R.K. Mishra appears for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Pankaj Rai appears for the respondent No. 2.
The appellants seek to challenge the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the first respondent has been allowed.
2. The short facts leading to this appeal are that the father of the first respondent was working under the U.P. Power Corporation whose Chairman-Cum-Managing Director has filed this appeal. Father of the respondent No. 1 died while in service on 16th October, 1991. The respondent No. 1 was minor at that time. He became major on 30th June, 1997. He applied for compassionate appointment under the Corporation just within a month thereafter i.e. on 23rd July, 1997. His application came to be considered and an appointment order was issued on 14th February, 2001 which was nearly 3 1/2 years thereafter. The appointment came to be cancelled subsequently on 19th February, 2002. This order of cancellation led to the filing of the petition by the first respondent. During the pendency of the petition, the cancellation of appointment was stayed.
3. When the petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge the appellant herein submitted that the application for employment made by the respondent No. 1 was beyond 5 years from the death of his father and under Regulation 5 of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment of dependants of Board's Servants dying in harness Regulations, 1975 as amended on 22.1.1998, the person concerned had to make application within 5 years. The learned Judge did not entertain this submission and allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.
4. Sri B.P. Singh has drawn our attention to the relevant Regulations. The Regulation as amended on 22nd January, 1998 requires one to make an application for employment within 5 years from the date of death of the Board's servant. The concerned clause of the Regulation has however a proviso, which reads as follows:
Provided that where the Board is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.
Thus, the proviso grants power of relaxation where the Board is satisfied that the time limit for making an application would cause undue hardship in the particular case. In the present case, undoubtedly the respondent No. 1 could not have applied when he was minor. It is only when he became major he could apply, which he did so within a month. That application had thus come to be entertained by the appellants.
5. That apart, it is material to note that this amendment has come into force on 22nd January, 1998 whereas the respondent No. 1 had applied on 23rd July, 1997 i.e. prior to amendment. Undoubtedly the Regulation did not provide for any such restricted period and as such the question of delay would not arise. In any case, on the facts of this case it is quite clear that the respondent No. 1 was minor during this period of over 5 1/2 years and as soon as he became major, he filed this application which is some 8-9 months beyond the period of 5 years after the death of his father It is also material to note that the order of cancellation did not give any reason but when the counter affidavit was filed, the order of the Personnel Officer dated 15th June, 2001 was enclosed therewith which stated that the application was beyond time. As stated above, the reason could not be sustained The respondent No. 1 was undoubtedly a needy person. It is only because there was such necessity that the appellants did appoint him and the only ground for cancellation is that the application was made beyond time, which is not sustainable. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellants that the first respondent had concealed any fact or misrepresented in his application, nor there , is any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the first respondent at the time of seeking appointment or otherwise.
6. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.