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


Chandramani v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 14192 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5493 (8 March 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).



Heard counsel for the parties.

Father of the petitioner Shri Chunnilal was employed as Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of U.P.  He expired during harness on 24.12.1990.  On the relevant date petitioner was aged about six years.  On attaining the age of majority after 12 years subsequent to the death of his father he made an application for compassionate appointment.  

By means of the impugned order dated 15.12.2005 the Secretary, State Government has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of relaxation in the outer time limit prescribed for making an application for compassionate appointment with reference to Rule 5 (1) proviso of the  U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 only on the ground that the application has been made after more than 12 years of the death of the father of the petitioner.  Further that no special circumstances has been disclosed for such a relaxation granted in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Rependra Singh Vs. Chief Engineer and Others, 2003 ESC (4) 184 as also on the decision in the case of Satish Chandra Dubey Vs. Chief Secretary, State of U.P. and others, 1992 ALR, 407, for the proposition that in the event a claimant was a minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee, he can be permitted to move an application, and claim relaxation for the same as soon as he attains the age of majority.  In the instant case, the petitioner has applied before the respondents soon after obtaining the age of majority which aspect has not been considered by the State Government while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner.  Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.12.2005 is quashed with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to re-consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in view of the decisions referred to herein above as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is allowed.

Dated: 8.3.2006



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.