SUNIL KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. Also perused the papers on record. Though the learned Brief Holder for the State sought time to file counter affidavit in the matter, but the Court refused to grant time for filing the same for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter.
(2.) Briefly put, the facts of the case are that Smt. Mohini Devi was working as Head Mistress in Primary School, Bhatora, Dwarahat, District Almora. She died in harness on 22.4.1985. Petitioner is the son of said deceased Government Servant. At the time of death of his mother, he was a minor. So, he did not apply for his appointment claiming the benefits of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. After attaining the age of majority and acquiring the academic qualification of Intermediate, the petitioner applied for his appointment on the post of a Teacher, on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules. But the competent authority denied appointment to the petitioner on the post of a Teacher on the ground that he was not eligible to be appointed as such because he was not having requisite educational qualification. However, petitioner was asked to seek appointment in Class IV Group. But instead of doing so, petitioner chose to pursue higher education, and after completing his Post Graduation, he again sought his appointment as a Teacher claiming the benefits of Dying in Harness Rules. When the competent authority paid no heed to his request, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1174/2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2011 with direction to the concerned authority to consider and decide the said application of the petitioner within eight weeks.
(3.) The competent authority, after the aforesaid orders of this Court, considered the application of the petitioner for his appointment, on compassionate ground, to the post of a Teacher under the Dying in Harness Rules, but rejected the same vide impugned order dated 21.2.2012, wherein it has been mentioned that in compliance of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was informed, in advance, to appear personally on 28.12.2011 along with the relevant papers, but he absented himself on the date fixed. However, the competent authority considered the claim of the petitioner and, after reflecting on the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the same on the ground that Rule 8 of the Government Order No. 5193/15-5-2000-400/222/99 dated 4.9.2000, envisaged that dependant of a deceased Government Servant can apply for his appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules within a period of five years only from the date of the demise of the Government Servant. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that any dependent of a deceased Government Servant has no right to claim his appointment under the said Rules after a lapse of considerable time as is envisaged in Government Order No. 853/Karmik-2/2003 dated 12.6.2003, and since 26 years had already elapsed after the death of the concerned Government Servant, the claim of the petitioner was rejected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.