Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Ayza Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Minority ... on 29 January, 2018
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 19 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1227 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Ayza Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Minority Welfare Deptt.& Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Siddiqui Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned standing counsel for State. Shri Rahul Gupta, the Registrar/Inspector, Arbi Farsi Madarsa, U.P. is present in person.
Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by opposite party no. 3.
The facts of the case are that father of petitioner expired on 26.10.2014 while he was working as Assistant Teacher/Tahtania with the Madarsa Madinatul-Ulom, Rasauli, District-Barabanki. Submission is that at the time of death of petitioner's father, there were no Rules for giving any appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee but such Regulations namely, Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arbi Aur Farsi Madarsa Manyta, Prashashan Aur Seva Viniyamavali, 2016 have come into force and under Regulation 10 thereof, procedure for appointment under Dying in Harness is provided. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that since the death of father of petitioner took place within five years prior to coming into force of said Rules, hence, petitioner under Rule 10(2) of aforesaid Rule can file an application for appointment and his application is liable to be considered on merits.
Learned standing counsel submits that benefit of appointment is available only in case death has taken place after coming into force of Rules and not in a case where death has taken place prior to coming into force of said Regulations.
The aforesaid Regulations of 2016 came into force from the date of its notification i.e. 22.07.2016. The relevant provision for the purpose of our case is Clause-10 of the said Regulations which reads:-
" 10&¼1½ lgk;rk izkIr enjlk ds fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij mlds ,d vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA e`rd vkfJr dh Js.kh fuEuor~ gksxh%& ¼d½ ifr ,oa iRuh ¼[k½ iq= ,oa vfookfgr iq=h ¼x½ xksn fy;k x;k iq=@iq=h ¼?k½ fo/kok iq=h ¼ekrk&firk ij vkfJr½ fu;qfDr fuEukuqlkj gksxh%& ¼2½ deZpkjh dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij mldk ,d vkfJr 05 o"kksZa dh vof/k esa enjlk esa vkosnu djsxkA ................"
The said Regulation 10(2) provides that an application on death of employees can be made by its dependent within a period of five years of death. There is nothing in the said Regulations which positively provides that appointment shall be given only to the dependents of employees who expired after 22.07.2016 i.e. coming into force of these Regulations. Thus, the Regulations can be interpreted as providing that only persons who expired after coming into the force of the Regulation can apply for appointment under the said Regulation and the same can also be interpreted as providing that those persons, whose parents expired prior to coming into force of said Regulations and their dependents are now applying within a period of five years from the death, would also be entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.
Admittedly, these Regulations, providing for 'Dying in Harness' appointments, are without question a beneficial legislation. Such a legislation ought to be interpreted to give benefit to larger number of society. The later interpretation would fulfill the objective of the Regulations in a wider sense and would result in benefit to more people facing challenge, which is attempted to be addressed by these Regulations. A reference may be made to case of Workman Vs. Firestone and Tire and Rubber Company (1973) 1 SCC 811. Paragraph 35 of the said judgment reads:-
" It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a welfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as a beneficent rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be place on the section, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object the Act and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred. Another principle to be borne in the mind is that the Act in question which intends to improve and safeguard the service conditions of an employee, demands an interpretation liberal sight of another canon of interpretation that an statute or for the matter of that and without doing violence to the language under by the legislature"
In the present case, without doing any violence to the language of the Regulations, the said benefit can be given to more persons who are facing challenge in life because of untimely death of persons, on whom they were dependent and thus, they ought to be considered for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules'. The State Policy to give such benefit to dependents of its deceased employee should not be restricted, by unnecessarily giving a restrictive interpretation, but being social beneficial, the provisions should be so interpreted that larger number of families facing difficulty gets the benefit of the State Policy.
Thus, a person whose parents expired within a period of five years can apply under Clause-10 of the Regulations of 2016, despite such a death might have happen before 22.07.2016.
In view of aforesaid, order date 03.11.2017 cannot stand is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Petitioner is permitted to make a fresh detailed representation to opposite party no. 3 Registrar/Inspector, Arbi/Farsi Madarsaz, U.P. Jawahar Bhawan Lucknow, for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' annexing therewith a certified copy of this judgment and all the documents/government orders/judgments in support of his claim within a period of six weeks from today.
In case such a representation is moved by petitioner, opposite party no. 3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, as declared above, by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment along with representation is placed before him.
Order Date :- 29.1.2018 Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)