- (1.) HEARD O.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the compassionate appointment in police department. The father of the appellant, who was Sub Inspector in the police department died in harness on 14.07.2001. The appellant moved an application on 16.02.2006 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. The application was within time. However, the appellant could not complete the age of 21 years. Officer on Special Duty (Establishment) wrote a letter on 04.10.2007 to the Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur stating therein that in the Board meeting dated 29.10.2006, it has been decided that the post of Sub Inspector is an important post wherein rigorous training is required and therefore, it is not possible to give appointment on the post of Sub Inspector. It is further stated that the appellant may be informed that in case, if he wants compassionate appointment on any post except Sub Inspector (Civil Police), he may give necessary information. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.44520 of 2009. The writ petition has been allowed on 26.08.2009 and the respondents have been directed to consider the claim afresh. The order dated 26.08.2009 reads as follows : Heard counsel for petitioner, the standing counsel and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of sub inspector on compassionate ground under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 read with relevant rules and guidelines. The petitioner has also prayed for a directing the respondents to permit him in physical and endurance test for the post of Sub Inspector scheduled to be held on 26th, 27th and 28th August, 2009 at Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow. The only prayer of the counsel for petitioner at this stage is that petitioner's representation dated 4.1.2006 may be directed to be decided by respondent no. 3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad within some time bound frame. The standing counsel for respondents has no objection to this prayer but submits that physical and endurance test etc. has already commenced and case of the petitioner is yet to be considered on his representation, as such he may be considered at a later date in case the representation is decided in his favour. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is being finally disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad to decide petitioner's representation dated 4.1.2006 by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(3.) VIDE order dated 20.10.2009 the application of the appellant has been considered by the Police Headquarters and it is informed that in case, if the appellant wants compassionate appointment on any other post other than Sub Inspector, the same may be considered. The appellant filed Contempt Petition No.3870 of 2009, which has been dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2009. The appellant further filed Writ Petition No.3541 of 2012, which has been disposed of vide order dated 19.112012 with the direction to consider the representation of the appellant. By order dated 02.02.2012, the State Government has observed that the appellant has completed the age of 21 years after the expiry of five years, therefore, he may give acceptance for the compassionate appointment on the post, for which he is eligible. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.20891 of 2012, which has been allowed vide order dated 16.01.2013 with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant on the post of Sub Inspector, against which the State Government has filed Special Appeal No.487 of 2013. Learned Standing Counsel provided the copy of the application filed by the appellant, which has been confronted to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and are placed on record. The application dated 16.02.2006 is referred hereinbelow : ;