- (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10th July, 2007 by which compassionate appointment was de nied to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspec tor General of Police (Establishment) U.P. and for a direction upon the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the peti tioner under 'The U.P. Recruitment of De pendents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules')
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the father of the petitioner Ganeshdher Pandey was working as a Constable in the U.P. Police and it is claimed that he was miss ing since 23rd August, 1996 from Police Lines Obra, District Sonebhadra and could not be traced. A certificate dated 23rd July, 1999 was issued by the Superintendent of Police certi fying that the father of the petitioner was missing from 23rd August, 1996 and inspite of best efforts could not be traced. THEreafter, a communication dated 19th July, 1997 was sent to the brother of the petitioner's father regarding payment of pension/GPF and con sequently, the mother of the petitioner moved an application for payment of the dues which were ultimately paid on 29th October, 1999. The petitioner has brought on record the communication dated 16th July, 2004 sent by the petitioner's mother to the Superintendent of Police District Sonebhadra wherein a re quest was made to grant compassionate ap pointment to her son, who is the petitioner in the present petition, as she was not in a posi tion to work. It was further stated that earlier also an application had been moved but de tails of the said application have not been mentioned. The petitioner has also brought on record the representation dated 13th Feb ruary, 2007 for grant of appointment. The pe titioner then filed Writ Petition No. 18104 of 2007 which was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Es tablishment) that in case the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation, the same should be considered and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as is possible, preferably within two months from the date of filing of the same. The petitioner subse quently filed a representation dated 14th June, 2007 which was rejected by the order dated 10th July, 2007 which has been impugned in the present petition. In the said order, it has been mentioned that the Government Order dated 20th March, 1987 provides that the ben efits should be given to the Family of an em ployee who is said to be missing within a period of one year and in the subsequent Gov ernment Order dated 9th December, 1988 it has been clarified that the family of an em ployee who is missing will not be entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rules. It is, in such circumstances, that the compas sionate appointment has been denied to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the pe titioner and learned Standing Counsel appear ing for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that benefit of Rule 5 of the Rules is available in all types of death including pre sumptive death and, therefore, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) committed an illegality in rejecting the ap plication solely on the ground that compas sionate appointment cannot be granted in case of presumptive death and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a judg ment of this Court in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC 858 : (2005 All LJ 790). Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, contended that compassionate appointment is granted to tide over immediate financial difficulties which the family of the deceased may face but in the present case, the application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner was filed by his mother on 16th June, 2004 after a period of more than 7 years. He, there fore, contended that in such a case compas sionate appointment cannot be granted and in support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Ravi Shanker Tewari v. Police Maha Nideshak U.P. and Ors., 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1183.;