High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rakesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9784 of 2006  RD-AH 10958 (2 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9784 of 2006
State of U.P. and others........................................................Respondent
Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 3.1.2006 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner contended that his father was working as a Constable and died in harness on 14.4.2001. The petitioner claimed to be the son of the deceased from his first wife and accordingly filed an application before the authority for an appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 which was eventually rejected by the impugned order, on the ground, that the deceased also had other heirs from his second wife who on a comparative assessment was found to be more suitable.
Before this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has his own family and was living separately at the time of his father's death and was engaged in farming in the agricultural land of his father. It was alleged that the petitioner holds 11 bighas land and is doing farming on the said land. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit.
The net result which can be culled out from the affidavits filed by the parties before the Court is, that the petitioner was not dependent on his father's income at the time when he died. The law governing the appointment on compassionate ground is that the dependent of the deceased alone can be given an appointment on compassionate ground. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. In the present case the petitioner was not living with his father at the time of his father's death. Consequently, it
can safely be presumed that the petitioner was not dependent on his father's income. Further, I find, that since there were two claimants the authority had decided that the other heir of the deceased was more suitable than the petitioner. This order was based in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 and is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority.
In view of the aforesaid the petitioner is not entitled to be given an appointment on compassionate ground. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.