- (1.) HEARD Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and Sri O.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the compassionate appointment in police department. The father of the respondent, who was Constable in the police department died in harness on 28.08.2005. The respondent moved an application on 16.10.2008 stating therein that now he has become major and he being the dependent of the deceased father, requested for the compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. Further it may be mentioned here that in the said application he has not stated anything about the financial crises and the appointment has not been sought on the ground that he and has family are running in financial crises. Subsequently, the respondent moved another application on 01.08.2011, which was acknowledged on 03.08.2011, claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector stating therein that he is now eligible to be appointed on the post of Sub Inspector. This application was beyond five years, from the date of death of the deceased employee. D.I.G. (Establishment) wrote a letter dated 16.10.2011 to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur stating therein that since the respondent has completed his Graduation and attained the age of 21 years, after five years from the date of death of the deceased employee, he is not entitled for the compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. It is further stated that in case, if the respondent is interested on compassionate appointment on the post of Constable, necessary application be obtained in this regard. Against the said order, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.5640 of 2012, which has been disposed of on 01.02.2012with the following observation : "In the present case, petitioner has rushed to this court contending therein that his claim under U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been confined to be considered only qua post of constable and not at all qua the post of Sub Inspector and said claim is sought to be ignored on account of the fact that petitioner has passed his Graduation Examination in the year 2011. Petitioner claims that such opinion formed, is incorrect opinion and the eligibility of the incumbent is to be seen qua date when his claim is liable to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Opinion formed is incorrect opinion as Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs.Raj Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2011 has already taken the view that claim of incumbent has to be considered in the light of policy holding the field when claim's to be considered. Consequently, in the facts of the case, respondent authority is directed to consider the request of the petitioner keeping in view the dictum of this Court in the case of Vaibhav Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, writ petition No.52 of 2003 decided on 23.12.2005, within next two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Earlier order passed in breach of said dictum as such same is not approved of and same is set aside. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
(3.) THEREAFTER , the respondent filed Contempt Petition No.2307 of 2012. Against the order dated 01.02.2012, the respondent filed Special Appeal No.(770) of 2012, which has been registered with regular Special Appeal No.100 of 2015. In the said Special Appeal, no interim order has been passed. Meanwhile on 11.04.2013, the D.I.G. (Establishment) has passed the following order : "In the present case, petitioner has rushed to this court contending therein that his claim under U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been confined to be considered only qua post of constable and not at all qua the post of Sub Inspector and said claim is sought to be ignored on account of the fact that petitioner has passed his Graduation Examination in the year 2011. Petitioner claims that such opinion formed, is incorrect opinion and the eligibility of the incumbent is to be seen qua date when his claim is liable to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. Opinion formed is incorrect opinion as Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs.Raj Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2011 has already taken the view that claim of incumbent has to be considered in the light of policy holding the field when claim's to be considered. Consequently, in the facts of the case, respondent authority is directed to consider the request of the petitioner keeping in view the dictum of this Court in the case of Vaibhav Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, writ petition No.52 of 2003 decided on 23.12.2005, within next two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Earlier order passed in breach of said dictum as such same is not approved of and same is set aside. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 11.04.2013, the respondent has been given appointment on the post of Sub Inspector.;