RAJES KUMAR,J - (1.) Heard Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and Sri O.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
(2.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 26.7.2013, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 60090 of 2012; Janmejay Singh Vs. State of U.P and others, which has been decided in terms of judgement dated 26.7.2013, passed in Writ Petition No. 32831 of 2012 ( Upendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P and others), whereby the writ petition has been allowed.
(3.) THE dispute relates to compassionate appointment in police department. The father of respondent, Janmejay Singh, who was constable in the police department died in harness on 8.1.2000. The respondent being son, moved an application on 3.10.2002, claiming compassionate appointment on the post of SI ( M). This fact is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The application was moved within time. The respondent was asked to appear for SI(M) test. He appeared, but declared failed. On 17.9.2007, the respondent moved another application, claiming appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Constable. Subsequently, on 3.3.2009, the respondent moved an application to Deputy Inspector General of Police( Establishment) with a request that he may be permitted to convert the request for the post of Constable into the post of Sub -Inspector. He again moved an application on 23.3.2009 and requested for compassionate appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector(Civil Police). All the aforesaid three applications dated 17.9.2007, 3.3.2009 and 23.3.2009 were beyond five years . When the claim of respondent was pending, he filed Writ Petition No. 4276 of 2009. The writ -court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 23.10.2009 with direction to the authorities concerned to decide the application of respondent. It appears that the fact that in pursuance to the application, the respondent has been asked to appear in SI(M) test and has been declared failed on 16.9.2007 , has not been stated in the writ petition. In pursuance of the order of writ -court, the case of the respondent has been examined. Deputy Inspector General of Police ( Establishment), U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad vide letter dated 23.11.2010 has referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government has declined to relax the period of limitation on the ground that on the verification of character, it was found that against the respondent, a case under Section 304 I.P.C was lodged, in which charge sheet dated 3.5.2010 has been submitted. The decision of the State Government has been communicated by Deputy Inspector General of Police( Establishment) by letter dated 17.1.2011 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi and a copy of which, has been given to the respondent. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 3543 of 2012, challenging the decision of the State Government, communicated by letter dated 17.1.2011. Said writ petition has been disposed of vide order dated 20.7.2012, which reads as under: "I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties. It is evident from the judgement of the District and Sessions Judge that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, which has been referred in the impugned order by the respondent no. 2. In the impugned order, the only reason for denial the petitioner's appointment is the pendency of the criminal case. The said fact, in view of the judgement, does not exist and as such the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad, respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner's appointment in view of his subsequent acquittal in the pending criminal case. The respondent no. 2 shall pass fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in case of Vaibha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52 of 2003 and in case of Upendra Kumar Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ A No. 3346 of 2012. In case of Vaibha Singh , the petitioner therein was also dependent of Sub -Inspector of Police, who died in harness. His application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of delay. In case of Upendra Kumar Gautam , the application of the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that he has moved the application after 5 five years. In the present case, the only reason given in the impugned order, is the pendency of the criminal case and as such, in my view, the judgement relied by the petitioner, has no application in the facts of this case. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. ;