# Sunder Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-25
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 6063 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunder-singh-solanki-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46806
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Right to life and personal liberty - Right
to good health - Right to life enshrined in
Article
21
has
been
held
to
mean
something more than survival or animal
existence - This right include right to live
with human dignity - It include all those
aspects of life, which go to make a man's
life meaningful, complete and worth living
- Held, right of the petitioner to seek
reimbursement
of
medical
expenses
incurred by him to ensure his right to
health would fall within the ambit of right
to life. (Para 12)
B. Civil Law - U.P. Government Servants
(Medical Attendance), Rules, 2011 -
Accident during discharging of Official
duties
-
Injury
sustained
-Medical
reimbursement - Claim - Genuineness
of Medical bill undisputed - Meager
amount - Validity - Held, once the
accident
and
the
medical
bills
are
undisputed, the medical reimbursement
cannot be denied on technical grounds,
the
respondents
have
clearly
misdirected themselves by disallowing
the petitioner's reimbursement of his
medical bills under the pretext of Rules.
(Para 13)
C. Interpretation of statute - Objective
interpretation
-
Medical
Attendance
Rules providing for reimbursement of
the medical expenses to the Government
servant and retired pensioners, is a
beneficial and welfare legislation meant
for the welfare of the Government
servants - A liberal, sympathetic and
objective
interpretation
for
the
applicability of these Rules, has to be
made by the Courts and not a pedantic
or narrow approach of the matter would
subserve the interest of justice. (Para
17)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1.St. of Punj. & ors. Vs Ram Labhaya Bagga &
ors., (1198) 4 SCC 117
2.St. of Punj. Vs Mohan Lal Jindal, 2001 (9)SCC
217
3.Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs St. of
W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37

## Text

770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. Thus, this Court does not find any
force in the present writ petition filed by
the petitioner and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A770
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Service Single No. 6063 of 2017

Sunder Singh Solanki ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Maneesh Sahdev, Shailendra Singh Rajawat

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Abhinav N Trivedi, K. Chandra

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Right to life and personal liberty - Right
to good health - Right to life enshrined in
Article
21
has
been
held
to
mean
something more than survival or animal
existence - This right include right to live
with human dignity - It include all those
aspects of life, which go to make a man's
life meaningful, complete and worth living
- Held, right of the petitioner to seek
reimbursement
of
medical
expenses
incurred by him to ensure his right to
health would fall within the ambit of right
to life. (Para 12)
B. Civil Law - U.P. Government Servants
(Medical Attendance), Rules, 2011 -
Accident during discharging of Official
duties
-
Injury
sustained
-Medical
reimbursement - Claim - Genuineness
of Medical bill undisputed - Meager
amount - Validity - Held, once the
accident
and
the
medical
bills
are
undisputed, the medical reimbursement
cannot be denied on technical grounds,
the
respondents
have
clearly
misdirected themselves by disallowing
the petitioner's reimbursement of his
medical bills under the pretext of Rules.
(Para 13)
C. Interpretation of statute - Objective
interpretation
-
Medical
Attendance
Rules providing for reimbursement of
the medical expenses to the Government
servant and retired pensioners, is a
beneficial and welfare legislation meant
for the welfare of the Government
servants - A liberal, sympathetic and
objective
interpretation
for
the
applicability of these Rules, has to be
made by the Courts and not a pedantic
or narrow approach of the matter would
subserve the interest of justice. (Para
17)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1.St. of Punj. & ors. Vs Ram Labhaya Bagga &
ors., (1198) 4 SCC 117
2.St. of Punj. Vs Mohan Lal Jindal, 2001 (9)SCC
217
3.Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity Vs St. of
W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37
4. Surjit Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors., (1996) 2
SCC 336
5. Menika Gandhi Vs U.O.I., AIR 1978 Supreme
Court 597

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. In effect, the present petition has
been filed with the prayer to quash the
order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and
also to command the respondents to pay the
remaining
amount
of
medical
reimbursement of Rs.8,84,879.60 against
the
expenses
at
Apollo
Indraprasth
Hospital, New Delhi and Rs.53,027/-
against the expenses at KGMU, Lucknow
along with 18% interest including the
2 All. Sunder Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771
amount
of
Rs.3,30,000/-
against
the
expenses of Air Ambulance and also the
amount spent against the private rooms of
hospital.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner met with an accident during late
hours of night at 1.45 am on 26.07.2010
while he was posted as Station Officer,
Police Station Gosainganj and was on
patrolling. The petitioner sustained severe
injuries and he was brought to Trauma
Centre in King George Medical University,
Lucknow. At a later point of time, looking
to the condition of the petitioner, he was
referred to Indraprasth Apollo Hospital
New Delhi for further treatment. The
petitioner was Airlifted and he was
remained in the hospital up to 22.08.2010.
On 23.08.2010, the petitioner was sent to
Lucknow and he remained under treatment
at King George Medical University till
08.04.2011. On 09.04.2011, the petitioner
joined his services on the advise of the
doctors. The petitioner submitted his all bill
vouchers amounting to Rs.98,406/- spent in
KGMU and Rs.10,99,219.60 spent in
Apollo Hospital, New Delhi to the D.I.G.
Police, Lucknow Range who referred the
matter to the Director General Medical
Health, Lucknow (opposite party no.2).
The opposite party no.3 sanctioned only an
amount
of
Rs.1,48,340/-
against
the
expenses at Indraprasth Apollo Hospital
New Delhi and Rs.45,479/- against the
expenses at K.G.M.U., Lucknow. The
amount of Rs.3,30,000/- against the bill of
Air Ambulance was not sanctioned.

3. Being dissatisfied with the meager
amount, so sanctioned, the petitioner
preferred a representation to the Additional
Director, Medical and Health, Lucknow
(opposite party no.3) on 18.04.2011.
Thereafter the petitioner has filed a writ
petition No.6092 (SS) of 2012 praying
therein to reimburse the amount so incurred
on the medical treatment. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide order dated
01.08.2016 giving liberty to the petitioner
to approach the respondent no.4-Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow for
ventilation of his grievance by making a
representation which shall be considered
and decided by the respondent no.4 in
accordance with law. It was also observed
that the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Lucknow while considering the matter
under this order shall also give finding as to
whether provisions of Uttar Pradesh
Government Servant (Medical Attendance)
Rules, 2011 are applicable to the case of
the petitioner or not. The petitioner
preferred a representation in compliance to
the order of this Court dated 01.08.2016,
which has been rejected by impugned order
dated 29.09.2016 on the ground that the
claim has been settled before issuance of
the U.P. Government Servants (Medical
Attendance), Rules, 2011. Hence, this
petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that respondent no.3 in a
very illegal and arbitrary manner without
applying his mind sanctioned only an
amount of Rs.1,48,340/- against the claim
of Rs.10,33,219.60 and Rs.45,479/- against
the claim of Rs.98,406/-. Learned counsel
submits that the actual claim of the
petitioner was verified by the competent
authorities of the K.G.M.U, and the
Appollo Hospital New Delhi, but the
authorities did not sanction the entire
amount and no reason has been assigned. It
is submitted that the petitioner cannot be
denied the payment of entire amount of
medical reimbursement as he met with an
accident and sustained serious injuries
while he was on official duty. Learned
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel submits that as per the earlier
Government Orders and the Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servants
(Medical
and
Attendance) Rules, 2011 (for short 'Rules
2011'), the petitioner is entitled for the
expenses of the private room or special
room during the treatment as his basic
salary was Rs.22,370/- and 'Rules 2011'
also provides for the expenses of Air
Ambulance in case of emergency but
despite of the admitted fact of emergent
situation, the fee of Air Ambulance was not
paid to the petitioner. It has also been
submitted that the opposite parities have
illegally denied the benefit of the 'Rules
2011' to the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the
representation of the petitioner has been
rejected without application of mind. The
denial of medical reimbursement is not
only violate the legal right of the petitioner
but also violative of fundamental rights of
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned order
is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is
entitled for the payment of medical
reimbursement.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
State
has
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the
petitioner
and
submitted
that
in
compliance to order dated 01.08.2016 passed
in W.P. 6092 (SS) of 2012, the representation
of the petitioner has been decided in
accordance with law by the impugned order.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that
all admissible amounts have been reimbursed
to the petitioner after due consideration and
as per the relevant rules and the Government
Orders applicable at the relevant time. The
incident was taken place on 26.07.2010 and
the 'Rules 2011' came into existence w.e.f.
02.09.2011 and therefore the same is not
applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is
submitted that the department has proceeded
with the matter and after following the
procedure prescribed in the relevant rules and
the Government Orders, amounts have been
reimbursed to the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the State has submitted that the writ
petition has no merit and it is liable to be
dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record. Pleadings have
already been exchanged.

7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner
met with an accident during discharging of
his official duties. He was admitted in the
Hospital at King George Medical University
and thereafter looking to his condition, he
was referred to the Appollo Indraprasth
Hospital, New Delhi on the advise of the
doctors for the specialized treatment. After
the treatment, he has submitted his medical
bills duly verified by the doctors and there is
no dispute regarding the genuineness of the
medical bills, which have been submitted to
the department for the reimbursement.

8. In the petition, it is contended that
this Court may exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India so that the fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution are protected and promoted by
reimbursing
his
medical
expenditure
already incurred by him under genuine
emergency.

9. In the case of State of Punjab and
others vs. Ram Labhaya Bagga and others
reported at (1198) 4 SCC 117 Hon'ble the
Apex Court in para 23 and 27 the following
has held that :

"23. When we speak about a right, it
corelates
to
a
duty
upon
another,
2 All. Sunder Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
773
individual,
employer,
Government
or
authority. In other words, the right of one
is an obligation of another. Hence the right
of a citizen to live under Article 21 casts
obligation on the State. This obligation is
further reinforced under Article 47, it is for
the State to secure health to its citizen as its
primary duty. No doubt Government is
rendering this obligation by opening
Government hospitals and health centers,
but in order to make it meaningful, it has to
be within the reach of its people, as far as
possible, to reduce the queue of waiting
lists, and it has to provide all facilities for
which an employee looks for at another
hospital. Its up-keep; maintenance and
cleanliness has to be beyond aspersion. To
employ the best of talents and tone up its
administration
to
give
effective
contribution. Also bring in awareness in
welfare of hospital staff for their dedicated
service, give them periodical, medicoethical and service oriented training, not
only at the entry point but also during the
whole tenure of their service. Since it is one
of the most sacrosanct and valuable rights
of a citizen and equally sacrosanct sacred
obligation of the State, every citizen of this
welfare State looks towards the State for it
to perform its this obligation with top
priority including by way of allocation of
sufficient funds. This in turn will not only
secure the right of its citizen to the best of
their satisfaction but in turn will benefit the
State in achieving its social, political and
economical goal. For every return there
has to be investment. Investment needs
resources and finances. So even to protect
this sacrosanct right finances are an
inherent requirement. Harnessing such
resources needs top priority."

However, having regard to the fact
that the medical facilities continued to be
given and an employee was given free
choice to get treatment from any private
hospital in India but the amount of payment
for reimbursement was regulated, it was
opined :-

"27. No State or any country can have
unlimited resources to spend on any of its
project. That is why it only approves its
projects to the extent it is feasible. The
same holds good for providing medical
facilities to its citizen including its
employees. Provision of facilities cannot be
unlimited. It has to be to the extent finance
permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in
case private clinics or hospitals increase
their rate to exorbitant scales, the State
would be bound to reimburse the same.
Hence we come to the conclusion that
principle of fixation of rate and scale under
this new policy is justified and cannot be
held to be violative of Article 21 or Article
47 of the Constitution of India."

The aforesaid principle was reiterated
in the case of State of Punjab vs. Mohan
Lal Jindal reported at 2001 (9)SCC 217.

10. In the case of Paschim Banga
Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B.
reported at (1996) 4 SCC 37 Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held that

"The
Constitution
envisages
the
establishment of a welfare State at the
federal level as well as at the State level. In
a welfare State the primary duty of the
Government is to secure the welfare of the
people.
Providing
adequate
medical
facilities for the people is an essential part
of the obligations undertaken by the
Government in a welfare State. The
Government discharges this obligation by
running hospitals and health centres which
provide medical care to the person seeking
to avail of those facilities. Article 21
imposes an obligation on the State to
safeguard the right to life of every person.
Preservation of human life is thus of
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paramount importance. The government
hospitals run by the State and the medical
officers employed therein are duty-bound to
extend medical assistance for preserving
human life. Failure on the part of a
government hospital to provide timely
medical treatment to a person in need of
such treatment results in violation of his
right to life guaranteed under Article 21."

11. In the case of Surjit Singh vs.
State of Punjab and others reported at
(1996) 2 SCC 336 Hon'ble the Apex Court
has held as under :

"In a case where the appellant therein
while in England fell ill and being a case of
emergency case was admitted in Dudley
Road Hospital, Birmingham. After proper
medical diagnosis he was suggested
treatment at a named alternate place. He
was admitted and undergone bypass
surgery in Humana Hospital, Wellington,
London. He claimed reimbursement for the
amount spent by him.

In the peculiar facts of that case it was
held :-

"11. It is otherwise important to bear
in mind that self preservation of one's life is
the necessary concomitant of the right to
life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, fundamental in
nature, sacred, precious and inviolable.
The importance and validity of the duty and
right to self-preservation has a species in
the right of self defence in criminal law.
Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land
conceived of such right and recognised it.
Attention can usefully be drawn to verses
17, 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the
Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested
between the Divine and Garuda, the bird)
in the words of the Divine :

17.

Vinaa
dehena
kasyaapi
canpurushaartho
na
vidyate
Tasmaaddeham
dhanam
rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet Without
the body how can one obtain the objects of
human life? Therefore protecting the body
which is the wealth, one should perform the
deeds of merit.

18.
Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa
sarvasya
bhaajanam
Rakshane
yatnamaatishthejje
vanbhaadraani
pashyati One should protect his body which
is responsible for every thing. He who
protects himself by all efforts, will see
many auspicious occasions in life.

20. Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante
sarvadaa
budhaih
Necchanti
cha
punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah The
wise always undertake the protective
measures for the body. Even the persons
suffering from leprosy and other diseases
do not wish to get rid of the body.

22.
Aatmaiva
yadi
naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo
hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati
If one does not prevent what is unpleasent
to himself, who else will do it? Therefore
one should do what is good to himself."

We may, however, notice that in that
case, before the Court, Rules framed under
the
proviso
to
Article
309
of
the
Constitution of India, were not in force.
What were in force were the Policies
regarding
reimbursement
of
medical
expenses framed by the State of Punjab on
25th January, 1991 and 8th October,
1991."

12. The right to life of a citizen of the
country is the obligation on the part of the
State to reimburse the Medical Expenses
incurred by the employees. Article 21 of
the Constitution says that no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established
by law. Right to life enshrined in this
2 All. Sunder Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
775
Article has been held to mean something
more than survival or animal existence.
This right would include right to live with
human dignity, a right to minimum
subsistence allowance during suspension.
This right would include all those aspects
of life, which go to make a man's life
meaningful, complete and worth living.
This principle was laid down by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in the case of Menika
Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978
Supreme Court 597. An aspect which
alone can make it possible to live must be
declared to be an integral component of
right to life. Right to livelihood would also
be a facet of right to life. Even right to
good health has been held to be inclusive of
right to life. That being the wide scope and
ambit of this Article, right of the petitioner
to seek reimbursement of medical expenses
incurred by him to ensure his right to health
would fall within the ambit of right to life.
The responsibility of the Government
towards government employees can not be
left at the whims of the officials. The
Government can not be permitted to escape
from
responsibility
to
reimburse
the
medical
expenses
of
the
employees
incurred
on
the
support
of
some
technicalities.

13. In the instant case, the accident
taken place during discharge of official
duties. The petitioner was admitted in the
Government
Hospital
in
emergency
condition and thereafter referred for the
further
treatment
which
was
the
requirement and necessity for survival of
his life. Once the accident and the medical
bills
are
undisputed,
the
medical
reimbursement
cannot
be
denied
on
technical grounds. The respondents have
clearly
misdirected
themselves
by
disallowing the petitioner's reimbursement
of his medical bills under the pretext of
Rules. The Rules do not disentitle the
petitioner from getting reimbursement of
his medical bills, if otherwise are found
genuine. The State and its officials being
public
functionary
are
supposed
to
discharge their duties for larger benefit of
its citizens. It is welfare State. The
respondents were expected to perform their
duties in a more responsible, reasonable
and passionate manner so as to visualize
the problem and hardship faced by the
government employees.

14. It is settled legal position that the
Government employee during his life time
or after his retirement is entitled to get the
benefit of the medical facilities and no
fetters can be placed on his rights. It is
acceptable to common sense, that ultimate
decision as to how a patient should be
treated vests only with the Doctor, who is
well versed and expert both on academic
qualification and experience gained. A very
little scope is left to the patient or his
relative to decide as to the manner in which
the ailment should be treated. Speciality
Hospitals are established for treatment of
specified ailments and services of Doctors
specialized in a discipline are availed by
patients only to ensure proper, required and
safe treatment. Can it be said that taking
treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself
would
deprive
a
person
to
claim
reimbursement solely on the ground that
the expenditure incurred was excess to his
entitlement. The right to medical claim
cannot be denied on technical grounds.
Before any medical claim is honoured, the
authorities are bound to ensure as to
whether the claimant had actually taken
treatment and the factum of treatment is
supported by records duly certified by
Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is
established, the claim cannot be denied on
technical grounds.
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. It is admitted fact that the medical
bills which have been submitted by the
petitioner were duly verified by the
concerned hospitals. The petitioner was
discharged from the Indraprasth Apollo
Hospital on 22.08.2010. Thereafter, he was
sent to Lucknow and further he remained
under treatment at King George Medical
University, Lucknow till 08.04.2011. On
the advise of the doctor, he joined his
duties on 09.04.2011. The petitioner
submitted all medical bills to the D.I.G.
Police Lucknow Range for reimbursement,
however,
only
Rs.1,48,340/-
was
sanctioned
against
the
claim
of
Rs.10,33,219/-
and
Rs.45,479/-
was
sanctioned against the claim of Rs.98,406/-.
On
18.04.2011,
the
petitioner
made
representation to opposite party no.2 for
reconsideration but no order was passed by
the competent authority. In the year 2012,
the petitioner filed a writ petition No.6092
(SS) of 2012 before this Court which was
disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2016
with direction to the S.S.P. Lucknow to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner. So,
the matter regarding bill of medical
reimbursement never finally settled and in
the meantime the U.P. Government Servant
(Medical Attendance) Rules 2011 came
into force and made applicable w.e.f.
02.09.2011.

16. Now the question which is for
consideration is whether the duly verified
medical bills by the concerned hospitals
may be reimbursed to the petitioner as per
the Rules 2011 or not ? It is also relevant to
take into consideration that if the petitioner
was not sent by the Air Ambulance, then he
would certainly have died for want of better
medical treatment.

17. Apparently and avowedly, the
Medical Attendance Rules providing for
reimbursement of the medical expenses to
the
Government
servant
and
retired
pensioners, is a beneficial and welfare
legislation meant for the welfare of the
Government servants and, therefore, a
liberal,
sympathetic
and
objective
interpretation for the applicability of these
Rules, has to be made by the Courts and
not a pedantic or narrow approach of the
matter would subserve the interest of
justice.

18. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances the case in hand, it is
admitted fact that the bills which were
submitted for reimbursement were duly
verified by the concerned hospitals and it is
also not disputed by the State - respondents
that the condition of the petitioner was
critical and he was required specialized
treatment under the advise of the doctors of
K.G.M.U., so he was shifted to Appollo
Hospital New Delhi by Air Ambulance.
The only objection on behalf of the State is
that Rules 2011 is not applicable in the case
of the petitioner as the incident took place
prior to the commencement of the Rules
2011 but it is admitted fact that till the
commencement of the Rules, 2011, medical
bills of the petitioner was not settled by the
competent authority and this Court vide
order dated 01.08.2016 passed in writ
petition No.6092 (SS) of 2012 has directed
to consider the claim of the petitioner for
the reimbursement of the medical bills.

19. Since the amount of medical bills
of the petitioner was not settled and
pending for reimbursement before the
competent
authority
after
the
commencement of the Rules 2011, I am of
the view that the claim of the petitioner
requires consideration as per the Rules
2011. Thus, the impugned order dated
29.09.2016
passed
by
Senior
2 All. Mrs. Vinay Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
777
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow is liable
to be set aside.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order dated 29.09.2016
is hereby set aside. A writ of mandamus is
issued
directing
the
respondents
-
competent authority to re-consider the
claim
of
the
petitioner
for
the
reimbursement of the medical bills in terms
of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Medical and Attendance) Rules, 2011.
Whatever amount the petitioner is entitled,
the same be released. The said exercise
shall be completed within two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

No costs. Pending applications, if any
stands disposed of.
----------
(2021)02ILR A777
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH ALI, J.

Service Single No. 12306 of 2016

Mrs. Vinay Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Yadukul Shiromani Srivast

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law
- U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servant Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 -
Compassionate appointment - Object and
Purpose - Maintenance of other family
members of deceased - Consequence of
failure
-
Object
and
purpose
of
compassionate appointment is to provide
ameliorative relief to the family of a
government servant who has died in
harness
-
Where
compassionate
appointment is provided under Rule 5,
there is an obligation under the rule for
the person appointed to maintain the
other members of the family of the
deceased government servant who were
dependent on him/her immediately before
the death occurred and who are unable to
maintain themselves - When the person
appointed neglects or refuses to maintain
a person whom he or she is liable to
maintain, the services are liable to be
terminated under the Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules. (Para 10 and 11)
B. Civil Law
- U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servant Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 -
Compassionate appointment - Filing of
application - Time limit of five years -
Relaxation - Held, rationale for imposing
the requirement of the application being
made within five years is that the nexus
between the grant of employment and the
need of the family is preserved. That is
because after a lapse of time the sense of
need or dependency may cease to exist
both financially and otherwise - However,
Rule 5 enables the time limit to be
dispensed with or relaxed for the purpose
of dealing with a case in a just and
equitable manner where undue hardship
is shown. (Para 11)
C. Constitution of India - Article 14 and 15
- U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servant Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) - Compassionate
appointment - Word 'family' - Scope and
Ambit - Use of the word 'unmarried'
before
daughter
-
Validity
-Married
daughter - Entitlement - A daughter after
her marriage does not cease to be a
daughter of the father or mother - Use of
word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of
Dying-in-Harness Rules held illegal and
unconstitutional,
being
violative
of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
(Para 16 and 19)