- (1.) Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner's father was class IV employee in the office of Electricity Fabrication Unit, U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Naini, Allahabad. He died in harness on 16.6.1992. After his death, mother of the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on 20.8.1992. While working as Class IV employee in the respondent department, she died on 7.7.1997 leaving behind her minor daughter,, the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that after death of her parents, her maternal family had looked after her. Her maternal grand father has moved an application on 5.8.1997 indicating therein that the petitioner was minor and was being looked after by him, her claim for compassionate appointment be considered after she attained majority. The petitioner has attained majority on 15.5.2006 and has applied for compassionate appointment on 10.7.2006. She submitted repeated representations till 2013 when her case was considered and rejected vide order dated 22.3.2013. A communication was sent to the petitioner on the same date. By another communication dated 18.6.2013, the applications dated 9.4.2013 and 5.6.2013 of the petitioner, have been rejected on the ground that her claim is barred by time. The ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner on 22.3.2013 and 18.6.2013 is that she has applied after more than five years of death of the deceased employee and hence her claim cannot be considered being barred by time provided under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Challenging the orders of rejection of claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved the application for compassionate appointment soon after attaining majority. There was no delay on her part. The period of five years has to be reckoned from the date of attaining majority of the petitioner and not from the date of death of her mother in the year 1997. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at the relevant point of time and there was no question of her moving application for employment. Further submission is that both the parents of the petitioner died when she was barely nine years old. On account of death of her parents, she has faced undue hardship and somehow with the help of her maternal family, she could manage to complete graduation. As sufficient finance resources were not available, she could not attain higher vocational qualification and has been deprived of seeking public employment. She is merely a graduate and has somehow managed to complete diploma in computer applications from a private institution. As she has been deprived of higher technical qualification, her case deserves to be considered sympathetically. Her application could not have been thrown mechanically on the ground of delay i.e. beyond five years from the death of her mother. It was a fit case for consideration before the appropriate authority for grant of relaxation under first proviso to Rule 5 of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. A perusal of the order indicates that the concerned authority has not applied its mind to the undue hardship faced by the petitioner and rejected her application mechanically.
(2.) Repelling the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner is sole heir of the deceased employee and she had received terminal benefits of the deceased employee including family pension which is admittedly being paid to the petitioner. As she had sufficient finance to pursue her higher studies, it is not a case of undue hardship and her claim was rightly rejected.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that scale ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner is delay i.e. application moved beyond five years. The claim of the petitioner for grant of relaxation under first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 on the ground of undue hardship contended by her due to death of her parents, has not been considered by the respondent authorities.;