VINEET SARAN,J. - (1.) TRIVENI Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 was recruited as Constable in the year 1947. While he was in service in the year 1960, he was reported missing and since then he has not been traced out. When after the due date of his superannuation, no pensionary benefits and other funds of Triveni Singh had been paid to the petitioners, in the year 1994 an application was filed by the petitioners for payment of funds and pensionary benefits as well as for appointment of the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The said application for the appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by order dated 14-2-1995. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with prayer to quash the order dated 14-2-1995 and provide employment to the petitioner No. 1 under the Dying in Harness Rules and also for a direction to the respondents to grant pension and pay other admissible funds to the petitioners. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Chhabba Devi wife of missing constable Triveni Singh has died.
(2.) WITH regard to claim of the petitioner No. 1 to provide him appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, in my view, the same cannot be granted at this stage specially when the application has been moved after 34 years of the employee having been declared missing. Even otherwise, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the respondents dated 14-2-1995 whereby the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for appointment on compassionate grounds of dependents of those employees who have been declared missing. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if a person is found missing for seven years, he will be presumed to be dead. The petitioner claims that the benefits of Dying in Harness Rules would thus apply in the present case also. Be that as it may, admittedly, the petitioner's father was declared missing in the year 1960 and if he was to be presumed dead, it would be in the year 1967. Admittedly, the petitioner has claimed for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules for the first time in 1994 i.e. 27 years after the presumed death of the father of the petitioner No. 1. The appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules is to be given to tide away the sudden financial crisis, which the family of the petitioner suffers because of the death of the sole bread earner of the family. In the present case the application has been filed 34 years after the father of petitioner No. 1 was found missing and 27 years after the presumption of the death of the father of the petitioner. He cannot thus be entitled for appointment under the Dying to Harness Rules as under the said Rules application is maintainable only within five years of the death of the employee and the same can be condoned for reasonable period by the State Government only for valid reason. The petitioner No. 1, Tahsildar Singh was 39 years of age when the application was filed and his elder brother was 50 years of age. They would even otherwise not be entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. Thus, the order refusing to grant appointment to the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules. Thus, the order refusing to grant appointment to the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules cannot be said to be unjustified.
(3.) AS regards the other prayer of the petitioner for payment of admissible funds of his father and grant of pension, learned Counsel for the respondent states that same would be made available to the petitioners and others dependents in accordance with law within a reasonable time. In the short counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that the father of petitioner No. 1 was in police service and has been untraceable since 1960. It has been further stated that after seven years, the father of the petitioner was treated as dead and the “proceedings for release of various in the name of the petitioners' father was started to enable the payment of the same to his wife.” It is not understood as to why, the various funds as well as the pensionary benefits had not been paid to the dependents of the missing constable Triveni Singh, when the respondents themselves admitted that after seven years of the declaration of the petitioner's father as missing, the same was payable.;