- (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 23.10.2013, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 44953 of 2013, which has been allowed in terms of judgement of this Court passed in Writ A No. 32831 of 2012( Upendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P and others) dated 26.7.2013, whereby the writ petition has been allowed.
(3.) THE dispute relates to compassionate appointment in police department. The father of respondent, Rakesh Gautam, who was constable in the police department died in harness on 8.2.2002. The mother of the respondent has moved an application on 1.7.2006 for claiming compassionate appointment for her son on the post of SI(M)/ Stenographer. Subsequently, on 11.6.2008, the mother of respondent moved another application, seeking compassionate appointment for her son on the post of Sub -Inspector (Civil Police). Since the application was pending, respondent filed Writ Petition No. 60123 of 2009, which has been decided on 4.1.2011 with the following observation: "The relief claimed in the petition is for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner as his father died in harness on 8th August, 2002 as a Constable in the Civil Police. It is stated that the petitioner was a minor at that time and after attaining majority moved an application for granting compassionate appointment. He was asked to appear at the Physical Examination for the post of Sub -Inspector, but though other candidates were examined and appointed but the petitioner was not examined. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and a stand has been taken that the petitioner was not called for Physical Examination since under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rule, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the claim should have been made within five years of the death of father of the petitioner but the application was filed by the petitioner after the expiry of five years. It is the contention of Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the period of five years should be counted from the date the petitioner attained majority and in any case, it was for the State Government under Rule 5 of the Rules to examine this and the Department on its own could not have taken a decision to reject the application. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the Department shall refer the matter to the State Government which shall take a decision in accordance with the Rules expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Department to refer the matter to the State Government, which shall examine it in accordance with the Rules and take a decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case, which shall be examined by the State Government in accordance with the Rules". In pursuance of the order of writ -court, the matter has been referred by the Deputy Inspector General of Police ( Establishment), Police Headquarters, U.P. Allahabad to the State Government for exercising power, under Rule 5(1) of the Rules 1974. The State Government vide order dated 19.10.2011 has taken the following decision which reads as under: ;