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


Bhagwat Swaroop Gautam v. State Of Up Thru' Home Secy, And Others - WRIT - A No. 2224 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 203 (19 January 2005)


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).


Court No. 9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2224 of 2005

Bhagwat Swroop Gautam


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

The petitioner's father Ram Gopal Gautam was serving as Head Constable in Civil Police. He died in harness on  2.1.1995 suffering from Tuberculosis. The petitioner attained majority in the year 2001 and made an application for compassionate appointment. This application dated 4.6.2001 was rejected by the Superintendent of Police (Regional) Abhisuchana Vibhag,  Agra,  on two ground firstly that the petitioner's father died due to illness and secondly  that the application was filed after considerable delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that the compassionate appointment to dependent of Government servant is provided under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules 1974. Under the proviso to Rule-5 the delay beyond five years  can be relaxed only by the State Government in a just and equitable manner. There is nothing to show that only those dependants of Government Servant will be considered for appointment, who have died inaction or on duty. Under Rule-5 of the Rules of 1974 the dependants of any Government servant who has died in harness irrespective of place, whether on duty or not or the cause of death, is entitled to compassionate appointment provided the family will be put to extreme financial difficulty, due to such death.

The Supreme Court held in Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468; Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 134, and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2000) 7 SCC 192 that the compassionate appointment is provided to tide over immediate financial crisis faced by the family. There is nothing in the Rules of 1974 to restrict such consideration only to the  Government Servant, who have died while discharging duties or that  the death must be  attributable to the service.

I find that the respondents have  erred in law in rejecting the applications. The application  shall be forwarded to the State Government for granting appropriate relaxation under the proviso to Rule-5 of the Rules of 1974 and thereafter if the delay is condoned by the appointing authority  the matter shall be sent back to the appointing authority to consider whether the family is still under financial distress.


The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 3.3.2003 rejecting petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is set aside. The respondents  shall consider the application afresh in accordance with the Rules of 1974 and observations as made above.

Dt. 19.1.2005



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.