KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER 's father was working as a Constable in Civil Police. He went missing from 31.01.1998. When there was no trace of his whereabouts, the mother of the petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 17.09.1998 at Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. After expiry of period of 7 years, his civil death was presumed and the respondents treating him to be dead, proceeded to sanction and release family pension to the mother of the petitioner and also released Gratuity, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance etc. Mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 28.07.2005 before the Superintendent of Police for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. When no action was taken, another application dated 27.12.2006 was moved before the U.P. Police Headquarter. Vide letter dated 23.06.2007, Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), Police Headquarter called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia. The petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2008 on the ground that there is no provision under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules) to give compassionate appointment to the heirs of missing person, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rule does not create any distinction between a person, who is dead or whose civil death is presumed. It only provides that where a Government servant dies in harness, one member of his family is entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.
(3.) IN reply, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the State Government vide Government order dated 9th December, 1998 has clarified that the provisions of the Rules are not applicable in case of employees, whose death is presumed in law.;