Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (in short 1974 Rules).
(2.) THE petitioner's father who was Ganna Gram Sewak, died in harness on 17.9.1987. After his death, the petitioner's mother had moved application dated 19.12.1987 a copy of which is contained in Annexure RA-1 with the prayer that her son i.e., the petitioner who was minor at that time, may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground after he attains majority. THE application submitted by the petitioner's mother remained undisposed of by the respondents. THEreafter on 27.8.1994 the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules. THE application for appointment has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.3.1997. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case. It has also been submitted that the State Government was competent to condone the delay and relax the age. Under the 1974 Rules, the application could have been moved within 5 years from the date of death of the Government employee. Meaning thereby, in case the application would have been moved upto 1992, the petitioner could have been appointed on compassionate ground. However, since the petitioner attained majority at later stage, the application was moved in the year 1994 which has been rejected by the impugned order. While rejecting the application it has been observed by the authority that no justifiable reason has been found to relax the time limit provided in the 1974 Rules for petitioner's appointment since the application was moved after lapse of 5 years. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766, State of JandK and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and submitted that now at this stage, no relaxation can be given to the petitioner for appointment. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon para-5 of the said judgment.
(3.) PROVISIONS with regard to appointment on compassionate ground, is governed by Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules. For convenience, Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules is reproduced as under: "Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. - (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person - (1) fulfils the education qualification prescribed for the post, (2) is also otherwise qualified for Government service, and (3) makes the application for employment within five years of the date of death of the Government servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death." The 1974 Rules has been framed in pursuance to power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has got statutory force. In case an application is moved after lapse of five years, then it shall be incumbent on the State Government to consider each and every case keeping in view the undue hardship of the dependent of a Government employee. In the present case, while passing the impugned order the competent authority of the State Government, has acted mechanically and the applications of as many as 10 dependents of Government servants have been rejected by a combined order with the observation that there is no justification to appoint the applicants under the 1974 Rules. The authority while passing the impugned order has not applied its mind to the undue hardship of the applicants and seems to have acted in contravention of the spirit of the proviso of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. It was incumbent on the authorities that instead of passing a mechanical order rejecting 10 applications at one stroke of pen, he should have applied his mind while passing the order after considering the individual case keeping in view the proviso of the 1974 Rules.;