S.RAFAT ALAM,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Nceraj Kant Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed, under the Rules of the Court, challenging the judgement of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4th August, 2005 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Brief facts, necessary for deciding this appeal, are; the husband of the appellant, Shivgovind, Kushvvaha, who was working as Class -IV employee at Government Girls Higher Secondary Schools, Vijainagar, Kapur Nagar, was to retire of 31st May, 2003, which was his date of retirement as per Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Sri Shivgovind Kushwaha died on 31st May, 2003 at 7.10 P.M. After the death of Sri Shivgovind Kushwaha, compassionate appointment was claimed by the appellant under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 for her son and also a claim was raised for extra ordinary' pension. A Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 6651 of 2005 was filed by the appellant, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14th February, 2005 permitting the appellant to make a representation to the District Inspector of Schools which was directed to the decided by a reasoned order. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 14th February, 2005, the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 9th May, 2005 rejected the claim of the appellant for giving compassionate appointment to her son as dependent of deceased employee. The District Inspector of Schools in the order held that late Shivgoving Kushwaha was retired in the afternoon of 31st May, 2003 and since the office hour is 10 A.M. to 5 P.M., the death occurred after the office hour, i.e., after his retirement disentitling any claim under the previsions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying -in -Harncss Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules). The order of District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the appellant before this Court. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgement also took the view that death having occurred in the evening at 7.10 P.M., which is after the retirement of the appellant's husband in the afternoon, no claim is made out for compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. Learned Single Judge referring to Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules took the view that the said Rule provides that a Government servant shall retire from service in afternoon of the last day of month in which he attains the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that the meaning of the word "afternoon" cannot be extended to evening and thereafter to midnight. Learned Single Judge held that death of the appellant's husband had taken place in the evening at 7.10 P.M. which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as afternoon.
(3.) SRI Neeraj Kant Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant, challenging the judgement, submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. He contended that 1974 Rules provides for giving benefit to the dependent of Government servant who died during service period (Sewakal) and the appellant's husband died on the day of retirement, i. e., during his service period, hence the claim under 1974 Rules was fully maintainable. Learned Counsel contended that the word "afternoon" used in Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules is the period from noon to midnight and the death at 7.10 P.M. was at the time when the husband of the appellant was in service. Learned Counsel further contended that since the benefit under Group Insurance Scheme was given and the appellant has also been paid necessary amount under the said scheme, which covers the employee who died while in service, it clearly meant that appellant's husband was treated to have died during service. Learned Counsel also relied on definition of word "afternoon" as given in Black's Law Dictionary.;