1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 5665 (SS) of 2004
Yaduraj Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
-----------------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner while
working as Chakbandi Lekhpal died on 14.11.1991. At the
relevant time, the petitioner was only six years and his younger
brother was only one year old. As the mother of the petitioner is
illiterate, application for compassionate appointment has not been
moved. On attaining majority, the petitioner moved an application
for compassionate appointment under U. P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules,
1974.
As the application was rejected by the order dated
20.5.2003, being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ
petition, which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 4749 (SS) of
2003. While allowing the writ petition by the order dated
6.8.2003, this Court quashed the order dated 20.5.2003 and
directed the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner
afresh, keeping in mind the immense financial hardship faced by
the family. After the question of relaxation under Rule 5 of the
aforesaid Rules is considered and decided, the opposite party No.4
shall take necessary steps to appoint the petitioner under the
relevant Rules.
The respondent No.1 rejected the claim of the petitioner for
appointment vide order dated 22.6.2004. Thereafter, this Court,
by the order dated 22.7.2004, directed the respondents to
consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22.8.2003, afresh.
2
In compliance of this Court’s order dated 22.7.2004, the case of
the petitioner was considered and rejected by the order dated
25.8.2004.
After considering the financial background of his uncles as
well as that of grandfather, the impugned order has been passed,
but without considering the financial status of the family. The
word ‘family’ has been defined in the Rules. Rule 2(C) where the
word ‘family’ has been defined reads as under:-
“family” shall include the following relations of the deceased
Government servant:
(i) wife or husband:
(ii) sons:
unmarried and widowed daughters:
On perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it reflects that the family
as defined in the Rules does neither include the uncles nor
grandfather. Thus, the State Government has erred in law as well
as directions issued by this Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 25.8.2004, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to re-
consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, within a maximum period of three months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Dt.22.1.2010
Lakshman/