Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shiv Mohan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Home) And Others - WRIT - A No. 9609 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3853 (17 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



The application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant, Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P., Allahabad vide order dated 20.12.2005, in alleged compliance of the orders of this Court dated 12.4.2005 passed in writ petition no. 29259/05, on the ground that the application has been made after nine years of the death of the police officer and that the said police officer has expired due to ailment,  the benefit of extension of time limit fixed for making the application  under the  government order dated 13.5.2003 cannot be applied in the facts of the case.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and attained majority only in the year 2000.  Immediately thereafter an application was made on his behalf for compassionate appointment.  The application was processed and certain queries made vide letter dated 13.7.2001.  However the application has now been rejected under the impugned order.  In view of Rule 5 proviso of the 1974 Rules, it is the State Government which has to take a decision as to whether the outer time limit fixed for compassionate appointment has to be relaxed or not in light of the attending circumstances namely undue hardship, and whether it is just and equitable to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case.  The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) could not have rejected the application on the ground that it has been filed after nine years.  He is duty bound to refer the matter to the State Government in light of Section 5 proviso.  Faced with the aforesaid contention Standing Counsel fairly states that the application of the petitioner for grant of relaxation qua the outer time limit fixed shall be referred to the State Government at the earliest.  In view of the aforesaid facts the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed.  Respondent no. 3 is directed to transmit the records of the application of the petitioner in accordance with  the proviso to Rule 5, within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before.  

On receipt of the records, respondents no. 1 shall consider and decide the same by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within six weeks.  Subordinate authorities shall act in accordance thereto immediately thereafter.

Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove.

Dated: 17.2.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.