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


Vaibhav Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 52 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 8139 (23 December 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).




Vaibhav Singh       v.       The State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition is directed against an order dated 4th December, 2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as time barred under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

The father of the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the civil police when he died in harness on 19.11.1994. As the family was in great financial distress, his mother moved an application dated 28.2.1995 for appointment of the petitioner on any post. The respondent no.4 vide his letter dated 6.10.1995 informed her that the petitioner was only 16 years old and, therefore, without attaining the age of 18 years, he could not be appointed, but offered appointment to his mother, but in the meantime, his mother also expired. After completing his Bachelor's degree the petitioner applied on 24/25.8.1999 for compassionate appointment, as his family continued to be in financial distress and was burdened with a unmarried sister. On the basis of his application, the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) sought a report from the Superintendent of Police with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 8.11.1999 forwarded the entire relevant documents and report with his recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police on compassionate grounds. However, he was informed vide letter dated 7.12.2000 that he had yet not completed 21 years of age and as such he could not be appointed as Sub-Inspector, Civil Police though he was offered appointment as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), but vide his letter dated 6.1.2001 the petitioner informed the respondents that he is awaiting action from the office of the Chief Minister, where he had submitted his case for consideration. By order dated 17.10.2001 the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was raised after five years and in view of the Rules, no relaxation could be granted in his case. This information was conveyed to the petitioner through a covering letter dated 20th December, 2001. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision through Writ Petition No.44477 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 3.1.2002 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner with regard to grant of relaxation in accordance with the Rules. In pursuance thereof, the present impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that firstly, his mother in 1995 itself and secondly, the petitioner himself in August, 1999 had made the application for compassionate appointment, therefore, there was no question of grant of any relaxation in the 5 years period fixed in the Rules. The argument appears to be correct.

There is no denial either in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order that for the first time the mother of the petitioner had made an application on 28.2.1995 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner but as he was a minor he could not be appointed, however, having attained majority, the petitioner himself had moved an application on 24/25th. August, 1999 and this application was duly processed but the claim for appointment as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police was rejected as he was only twenty years old and the offer of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was made. It is not denied that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.10.1979 and when his claim for appointment was rejected on 7.12.2000 he had already attained the age of 21 years.

Let us examine the validity of the impugned order, vis a vis, the Rules. The object of the Rules is to provide compassionate appointment to one member of the family whose sole bread earner dies in harness. It is in the nature of beneficial legislation and its validity has been upheld at the altar of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While interpreting its provisions the object of the legislation has to be kept in mind. Section 4 mandates that the Rules would have over riding effect on the regular recruitment rules. For ready reference Rule 4 is quoted herein below:

"4. Overriding effect of these rules. _ These rules and any orders issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these rules."

Rules 5 and 8 clearly provides for relaxation of the normal Recruitment Rules and for relaxation from age. For ready reference Rules  5 (1) and 8 are quoted below:

" 5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.

(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person -

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications

prescribed for the post,

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and,

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

"8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.

(1)   The candidate seeking appointment under

these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment.

(2) The procedural requirements for selection; such as written test or interview by a selection committee or any other authority, shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the appointing authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected on the post.

A joint reading of the three rules leads to the only conclusion, relevant for the present facts, that the incumbent ought to be more than 18 years old and the minimum age for recruitment in the normal recruitment rules would stand relaxed and the incumbent would be entitled for compassionate appointment. It need not be emphasized that the rules are an exception to the normal recruitment rules. Applying the effect of the aforesaid rules to the case at hand, it would be apparent that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The only ground for refusing appointment as Sub Inspector is that the petitioner was less than 21 years of age but it is apparent that he was in fact more than 18 years of age when he applied for compassionate appointment. In any event, on the date when the claim of the petitioner was rejected, he had already attained the age of 21 years.

Thus, examining the impugned order from either of the two angles, it cannot be sustained.    

For the reasons given hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.12.2002 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of two months and grant him appointment as Sub Inspector. No order as to costs.




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.