- (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. 32832 of 2012; Raj Surya Pratap Singh 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, who was constable in the police department died on 31.7.2001 in harness. The respondent being son, moved an application on 20.2.2002 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (M). This fact is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The application was moved within time. On 31.7.2008, the respondent was asked to appear on 9.8.2008 for SI( M) test. He appeared but has been declared failed. On 11.8.2008, the respondent moved another application, claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Constable. Thereafter, he again moved an application on 09.09.2008 claiming compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police). This application was beyond five years. On 19.8.2009, Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah referred the matter to the Police Headquarters. Thereafter, by letter dated 21.10.2009, the respondent was informed that he was not sent for physical examination since under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the claim should have been made within five years of death of his father but the application was filed after expiry of five years. By challenging the said communication letter, the respondent has filed Writ Petition No. 63263 of 2009. Before the writ-court, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that it was for the State Government under Rule 5 of the Rules to examine the question of relaxation and department on its own could not have taken a decision to reject the application.;