# Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-08-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4997 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40820
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules 1974Rule-5-Compassionate
appointmentclaim denied on the ground at the time
of death-employee was not discharging
his
duty-held-only
requirementgovernment. servant must be in serviceorder
of
rejection
passed
under
misconception-total non application of
mind-order quashed.

Held: Para 6

Thus a Government servant, if he is in
service and die, is one who die in
harness and dependent members of
family
are
entitled
for
suitable
employment under Rule 5 of 1974 Rules.
The· aforesaid Rule no where require
that the death of the Government
servant must occur while discharging
duty in the course of employment. The
only requirement under 1974 Rules is
that the Government servant must be in
service. It is not disputed that the
petitioner's father when died in 1992,
was in service, therefore, apparently the
view taken by the Superintendent of
Police, Mainpuri for rejecting the claim of
the petitioner is, incorrect and in the
teeth of 1974 Rules. It appears that the
aforesaid authority has not at all cared
to look into 1974 Rules and has passed
the
impugned
order
under
some
misconception
showing
total
non
application of mind on his part. In a
matter
pertaining
to
compassionate
appointment, this kind of exercise on the
part of the competent authority shows
total apathy and cannot be appreciated.

## Text

1 All] Rajesh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
187
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4997 of 2003

Rajesh Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vashistha Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjay Goswami
S.C.

U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Govt.
Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules 1974Rule-5-Compassionate
appointmentclaim denied on the ground at the time
of death-employee was not discharging
his
duty-held-only
requirementgovernment. servant must be in serviceorder
of
rejection
passed
under
misconception-total non application of
mind-order quashed.

Held: Para 6

Thus a Government servant, if he is in
service and die, is one who die in
harness and dependent members of
family
are
entitled
for
suitable
employment under Rule 5 of 1974 Rules.
The· aforesaid Rule no where require
that the death of the Government
servant must occur while discharging
duty in the course of employment. The
only requirement under 1974 Rules is
that the Government servant must be in
service. It is not disputed that the
petitioner's father when died in 1992,
was in service, therefore, apparently the
view taken by the Superintendent of
Police, Mainpuri for rejecting the claim of
the petitioner is, incorrect and in the
teeth of 1974 Rules. It appears that the
aforesaid authority has not at all cared
to look into 1974 Rules and has passed
the
impugned
order
under
some
misconception
showing
total
non
application of mind on his part. In a
matter
pertaining
to
compassionate
appointment, this kind of exercise on the
part of the competent authority shows
total apathy and cannot be appreciated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is
that his father working as Constable in
Civil Police of Uttar Pradesh died in a
road accident on 17th June, 1992. The
petitioner
after
having
obtained
Intermediate Qualification sought for
compassionate appointment under the
U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as
1974 Rules) but vide impugned order
dated
19th
December,
2002
the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has
rejected his claim only on the ground that
the
petitioner's
father
while
unauthorizedly traveling by a Matador,
met an accident, therefore his death
cannot be said to have occurred in the
course of employment and he is not
entitled
for
any
compassionate
appointment under 1974 Rules. He
submits that the ground on which the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment has been rejected is totally
non-est, illegal and contrary to the
provision of 1974 Rules.

3. The learned Standing Counsel,
however, submits that under 1974 Rules
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
dependants of a deceased Government
servant is entitled for appointment only
when the death has occurred in the course
of employment and therefore the order
passed by Superintendent of Police,
Mainpuri is correct and does not warrant
any interference,

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The only
question required for consideration is,
whether 1974 Rules is applicable in the
case in hand or not. Rule 3 of 1974 Rules
provides t hat the said Rules shall apply to
recruitment of dependants of deceased
Government servant to public services
and posts in connection with the State of
Uttar Pradesh, except those, which are
within the purview of Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission. Rule 4 gives
overriding effect to the aforesaid Rules
over any rule, regulation or order enforce
at the commencement of 1974 Rules.
Rule 5 is the substantive provision
entitling the dependants of a deceased
Government
servant
recruitment
in
Government service and reads as under:-

5. Recruitment of a member of the
family of the deceased:-(1) In case a
Government servant dies in harness after
the commencement of these rules and the
spouse, of the deceased government
servant is not already employed under the
Central Government or a Corporation
owned or controlled by the Central
Government or a State Government, one
member of his family who is not already
employed under the Central Government
or a State Government or a Corporation
owned or controlled by the Central
Government or a State Government shall,
on making an application for the purpose,
be given a suitable employment in
Government service on a post except the
post which is within the purview of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission, in relaxation of the normal
recruitment rules if such person:-

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications
prescribed for the post,

(ii) is
otherwise
qualified
for
Government service, and

(iii) makes
the
application
for
employment within five years from
the date of the death of the
Government servant;
Provided
that
where
the
State
Government 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;

(2) As far as possible, such an
employment should be given in the same
department
in
which
the
deceased
Government servant was employed prior
to his death.

5. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules
make it clear that the only thing relevant
for application of the Rule is whether the
deceased person was in the employment
of the State Government or not. The terms
"Government servant" and "deceased
Government" servant has also been
defined under Rule 2 (a) and 2(b) which
reads as under:-

2. (a) "Government Servant" means a
Government
servant
employed
in
connection with the affairs of Uttar
Pradesh who-
1 All] Rajesh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
189
(i) was permanent in such employment:
or
(ii) though temporary had been regularly
appointed in such employment: or
(iii) though not regularly appointed, had
put in three years' continuous service
in
regular
vacancy
in
such
employment.
(b) "deceased
Government
servant"
means a Government servant who dies
while in service;

6. Thus a Government servant, if he
is in service and die, is one who die in
harness and dependent members of family
are entitled for suitable employment
under Rule 5 of 1974 Rules. The·
aforesaid Rule no where require that the
death of the Government servant must
occur while discharging duty in the course
of employment. The only requirement
under 1974 Rules is that the Government
servant must be in service. It is not
disputed that the petitioner's father when
died in 1992, was in service, therefore,
apparently
the
view
taken
by the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri for
rejecting the claim of the petitioner is,
incorrect and in the teeth of 1974 Rules. It
appears that the aforesaid authority has
not at all cared to look into 1974 Rules
and has passed the impugned order under
some misconception showing total non
application of mind on his part. In a
matter
pertaining
to
compassionate
appointment, this kind of exercise on the
part of the competent authority shows
total apathy and cannot be appreciated.
The way in which the Superintendent of
Police, Mainpuri has considered the case
of petitioner, has resulted in adding
certain
words
in
1974
Rules
i.e.
"Government servant dying in harness
while discharging duty in the course of
employment"
though
the
words
"discharging duty in the course of
employment" does not exist in the Rule.
The purpose of Rule is to mitigate the
sudden crisis and hardship caused to the
family of the deceased on account of
unexpected
death
while
in
service.
Whether at the time of death he was
discharging duties or was ill etc. and
therefore died or for whatever other
reason, is wholly irrelevant, since the
purpose is to mitigate crisis suddenly
occurred due to unexpected death of the
sole bread earner. The only thing which
has to be consider for application of 1974
Rules is whether the incumbent was in
service or not. The learned Standing
Counsel could not dispute this fact that
the father of the petitioner was in service
when met accident and died.

7. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The order dated 19.12.2002 is
hereby quashed.

8. The Superintendent of Police,
Mainpuri is directed to reconsider the
matter and pass appropriate order in the
light of the above observations and in
accordance with law. It is needless to say
that while considering the claim of the
petitioner under 1974 Rules all other
aspects
would
also
be
considered
regarding the nature of appointment, the
objective of compassionate appointment
etc. and thereafter he shall pass a speaking
order in accordance with law.
There shall be no orders as to costs.

9. The competent authority
shall take decision as directed above
within two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Petition Allowed.
---------
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39944 of 2006

Gyanendra Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.P. Dubey
Sri Sanjay Srivastava
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Appointment as lecturer of Physicsempanelled
against
the
requisition
vacancy of Hindu Inter College Bandadue the reasons best known-petitioner
not joined at Banda-but managed be
adjusted in another institution against
Backward category-without requisition
without
advertisement-held-without
leave of court no salary shall be paid
such appointee secretary to hold and
submit its enquiry report against the
conduct of D-103, the manager and the
Head of the Institution concerned.

Held: Para 9 & 10

The enquiry may be completed by the
Secretary and specific finding should be
recorded in respect of the individual
persons
involved.
Report
may
be
submitted before this Court by 12th
December, 2006. The original records, as
have been produced before this Court,
may be transmitted to the Secretary,
Secondary Education, U. P. Government,
Lucknow under a sealed cover along with
certified copy of the order.

From the facts as have been noticed
herein above, this Court is prima facie
satisfied that continuance of Sri Ramesh
Chandra is apparently illegal and is
based on procured documents. It is,
therefore, directed that Sri Ramesh
Chandra shall not be paid salary without
leave of the Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. A post of Lecturer Physics in
Chaudhary Chhotu Ram Inter college,
Muzaffarnagar was requisitioned to the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Board,
Allahabad
vide
requisition dated 28th February, 2003. The
vacancy
was
earmarked
for
Other
Backward
Classes
category
in
the
requisition.
The
said
vacancy
was
ultimately
advertised
under
Advertisement No. 2/2004 in the said
category. Petitioner, who belongs to the
category of Other Backward Classes
applied in pursuance to the advertisement.
He
was
ultimately
selected
and
empanelled for appointment as Lecturer
Physics in the Caudhary Chhotu Ram
Inter College, Muzaffar Nagar.

2. The District Inspector of Schools,
Muzaffarnagar, on receipt of the select
panel, forwarded a letter to the Secretary,
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board dated 21.4.2006 stating
therein that one Sri Ramesh Chandra has
already
been
appointed
against
the
requisitioned vacancy of Lecturer Physics
and therefore there is no vacancy against
which
petitioner
can
be
offered
appointment and requested that he may be
adjusted in some other institution. Against
this order of the District Inspector of
Schools present writ petition has been
filed.