Anita vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Attau Rahman Masoodi, J—Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.B.S. Rathore learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

Learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas Sri J.N. Verma, learned counsel represented respondent No. 3.

Petitioner''s father late Sri Treveni Prasad died on 2.11.1996 leaving behind three dependents; his wife namely Smt. Ramkali and two daughters Vimla Devi and Anita. Vimla Devi is now married. It appears that the elder daughter was not educated and younger daughter Km. Anita at the relevant point of time was under age, therefore, application under Dying-in-Harness Rules could not be filed and the family had to survive under indigent financial conditions. Except an amount of Rs. 26,000/- which was paid to the indigent family out of the amount of group insurance no other financial support was available. Km. Anita became major in the year 2001 and by that time, she passed intermediate examination and soon thereafter in the year 2004 an application for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules was filed as the family had continued under financial stress. In the year 2004 when the application was filed, the same was beyond the period of limitation of five years prescribed under the relevant rules whereunder the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules is available to the dependents of Teachers working in the education department. Since the application made by the petitioner was beyond time, therefore, prayer for relaxation of time as regards filing the application was made before the competent authority. The matter accordingly was forwarded by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to the State Government in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5124(S/S) of 2005 on 11.8.2005.

The matter remained pending before the State Government which gave rise to another W.P. No. 8331(S/S) of 2009 wherein an order was passed on 18.12.2009 directing the State Government to consider the petitioner''s application and decide the same by a reasoned order. The impugned order is an outcome of above exercise which has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 1 while considering the petitioner''s claim though having found the petitioner under age at the time of her father''s death, has nevertheless refused relaxation on the ground that the petitioner has not advanced any basis for claiming relaxation. The reason recorded in the impugned order reads as under:

A close scrutiny of the reason recorded in the impugned order, shows that the authority concerned while dealing with the matter has failed to appreciate the reason of petitioner being minor at the relevant point of time which certainly is a just cause which ought to have been considered sympathetically. That apart, petitioner''s mother and elder sister not being educated could not claim the benefit of appointment due to lack of requisite education. In any case, the competent authority while considering the matter has also not recorded any reason in relation to the petitioner''s mother or elder sister which would have defeated the claim otherwise. The only reason recorded in the impugned order is that the petitioner being minor has not projected any basis for claiming relaxation. Such an approach of the competent authority in dealing with the matters for relaxation of time under Dying-in-Harness Rules is harsh and does not stand in the true spirit of the statutory scheme and object of the rules sought to be achieved. The appointment in public service under Dying-in-Harness Rules is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment, therefore, the family circumstances of a candidate even for the purpose of relaxation of rules is a necessary and relevant aspect of the matter which deserves to be considered with due application of mind.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate the above plea, has cited a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in 2010 (5) ALJ 325 and inviting the attention of this Court to para 7, it is argued that in a situation similar to the case at hand, this Court has directed the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner certainly supports the contention of the petitioner. Once the application was made having regard to the statutory rules, the same could not be turned down by the competent authority on a mechanical ground that too without due application of mind.

In my opinion the impugned order passed by opp. party No. 1 is bereft of any just reason and being palpably arbitrary calls for interference.

Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The competent authority, on a copy of this judgment alongwith the representation being served on him, shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law within a period not later than three months. The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. It shall also be open to the competent authority to ask the petitioner to produce the relevant details necessary for his consideration. With these observation the writ petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.