# Ex.No. 14294238 Signalman J.P. Dubey v. The U.O.I., & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ex-no-14294238-signalman-j-p-dubey-v-the-u-o-i-others-39377
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
165
that the judgement of this court was read in a most general and
sweeping manner and the direction of this court was not followed
and adhered to. Regulation regarding the grant of disability pension
were interpreted and applied in a most mechanical and casual
manner by the Ministry of Defense . The authorities ought to have
interpreted and applied the Regulations in a broad frame work to
dispense with justice, instead it were quoted and applied in a narrow
compass, bereft from a feeling of sympathy, compassion and
humanitarianism, in a most arbitrary ad irrational manner.

12. In view of the reasons indicated herein above, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the letter dated 31st July, 1986 contained in Annexure-IV
and letter dated 20th December, 1995 contained in Annexure-VIII
passed by Ministry of Defense, Government of India is issued. The
case of the petitioner is remitted for reconsideration by the Ministry
of Defense for the grant of disability pension, for passing afresh
appropriate order in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
While reconsidering the case of the petitioner, Regulations in
accordance with the respondents will also be guided with a human
approach so that message may not go from the corridor of the
Defense Ministry that the Government is not alive and sensitive to
the problems of soldiers who are discharged from service, on account
of disability during the course of Military Service. The Ministry of
Defense Government of India is further directed to dispose of the
appeal within a period of three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 1R RI

6PW 6DURM 'HYL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 7KH 6HFUHWDU\
'HSDUWPHQW RI ,UULJDWLRQ *RYHUQPHQW RI
83 /XFNQRZ RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL %KRRSHQGUD 1DWK 6LQJK
1999
------
Ex.No. 14294238
Signalman
J.P. Dubey
 Vs.
The U.O.I., &
others
------
S.H.A. Raza , J.
Krishna
Kumar,J.
1999
------
May, 21
166 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW 6&

'\LQJ LQ +DUQHVV 5XOHV 83 5HFUXLWPHQW RI 'HSHQGHQWV RI
*RYW 6HUYDQW $SSRLQWPHQW 3HWLWLRQHU¶V KXVEDQG GLHG LQ KDUQHVV
RQ \HDUV FRQWLQXRXV VHUYLFH RQ WHPSRUDU\ EDVLV RQ
VXEVWDQWLYH SRVW KHOG HQWLWOHG IRU DSSRLQWPHQW
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG.
J.T. 1996 (6) Page 646 distinguished.

+HOG
0RUHRYHU
LQ
WKH
83
5HFUXLWPHQW
RI
'HSHQGHQWV
RI
*RYHUQPHQW VHUYDQW
'\LQJ DQG +DUQHVV 5XOHV LW KDV EHHQ
PHQWLRQHG LQ UXOH WKDW WKH EHQHILW RI WKH '\LQJ DQG +DUQHVV
5XOHV PD\ EH JLYHQ WR WKH GHSHQGHQW ZKHUH WKH GHFHDVHG KDG
ZRUNHG IRU DW OHDVW WKUHH \HDUV 6LQFH WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V KXVEDQG
ZRUNHG IRU RYHU \HDUV WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV HQWLWOHG WR WKH EHQHILW RI
WKH '\LQJ DQG +DUQHVV 5XOHV 3DUD

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel.

 The petitioner is a widow with four small children. The
petitioner's husband died in harness on 4.5.1998 and she has claimed
appointment under Dying in and Harness Rules.

2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no
appointment under Dying and Harness Rules can be given to the
petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of
Haryana Vs. Rani Devi J.T. 1996 (6) page 646. He has invited our
attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment in which it has been
held that a casual or ad hoc appointee cannot be given benefit of the
G.O. dated 31.10.1985, I have carefully perused the aforesaid
decision and in my opinion, it is distinguishable. The petitioner's
husband was not a purely casual or ad hoc employee. He was a
temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy
from 18.4.1987 and had worked for more that 11 years. The decision
of the Supreme Court applied to a case of a casual or ad hoc
appointee e.g. a person appointed for a period of one month who
died after 20 days of appointment. In case of such a casual appointee
obviously the benefit of Dying and Harness Rules cannot be given.
Hence the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be
1999
------
Smt. Saroj Devi
 Vs.
State of U.P.
through The
Secretary, Deptt.
Of Irrigation,
U.P. Lucknow
& others
------
M. Katju,J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
167
applied in this case as the petitioner's husband worked for over 11
years.

3. More ever in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servant, Dying and Harness Rules it has been
mentioned in rule 2(3) that the benefit of the Dying and Harness
Rules may be given to the dependent where the deceased had worked
for at least three years. Since the petitioner'' husband worked for
over 11 years the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Dying and
Harness Rules.

4. In the circumstances the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner
commensurate to her qualifications within one month of production
of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

5,9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5,9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

.XQGDQODO
«$FFXVHG 5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH SDUW\

&RQQHFWHG ZLWK
&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

5DP 3UDNDVK
«$FFXVHG5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU
«2SSRVLWH SDUWLHV
&ULPLQDO UHYLVLRQ DJDLQVW WKH MXGJPHQW DQG RUGHU GDWHG
RI WKH 6HVVLRQV -XGJH LQ &ULPLQDO $SSHDO 1R RI
.XQGDO /DO VRQ RI %KDJZDQ 'DVV UHVLGHQW
RI 1R 4DGLU 5RDG 'HKUDGXQ
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH 3DUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
 6KLU 96 -DXKDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH 3DULWHV
 $*$
1999
------
July, 5
1999
------
Smt. Saroj Devi
 Vs.
State of U.P.
through The
Secretary, Deptt.
Of Irrigation,
U.P. Lucknow
& others
------
M. Katju,J.