AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanji Ram, father of the petitioner was shot dead by a police constable on 26.02.1998 when he was working as a labourer in the Police Department. Keeping in view the miseries that had befalled on the family of deceased, Sanji Ram because of his untimely death, the State Administration made a commitment to the family of the deceased that one of the sons of the deceased would be given Government employment. The Director General of Police, accordingly, accorded sanction to the appointment of the petitioner as constable in the J&K Armed Police on compassionate grounds. The order bearing No. 115 of 1999 dated 08.01.1999 came to be passed in this regard. As a follow up the Inspector General of Police, Armed J&K, Jammu even adjusted the petitioner in J&KAP 12th Battalion vide his order No. APHQ/Pers/App4/98/1487-90 dated 27.01.1999 with a stipulation that the concerned battalion shall issue formal order of appointment in favour of the petitioner after observing all necessary formalities. However, the formal ordr of appointment in favour of the petitioner could not be issued due to fact that the petitioner was overage by 9 months 23 days. The matter was, accordingly, taken up with the General Administration Department for relaxation. When the case of the petitioner for relaxation of upper age is not decided by the General Administration Department, petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 2006.
On being put on notice, the respondents have filed their objections in which only stand taken is that the petitioner could not be appointed as he was found over age by 9 months and 23 days and since respondent No. 4 was not competent to grant age relaxation, accordingly, the case was forwarded to the competent authority. The matter was considered by this Court at length on 17.04.2010 when this Court took note of the fact that despite the recommendation having been made by the Police Department, the State Government has not responded and has not passed any order in regard to relaxation of age of the petitioner. This Court, while providing last opportunity of four weeks to the Commissioner Secretary to Government, General Administration Department to pass final order on the relaxation of the age of the petitioner as recommended by the Police Department also made it clear that if the same was not done within stipulated period, it would be presumed that the Government had nothing to say in the matter. Thereafter, matter was listed on several occasions and respondents have only sought adjournment after adjournment but have not come up with any formal order of relaxation of petitioner's age.
On 18.08.2018, i.e. after eight years after the last and final opportunity was granted to the respondents, the respondents were given further four weeks' time to do the needful. The respondents have failed to do so.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances and also in terms of order dated 17.04.2010, it is a case where relaxation in the age of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been granted. The petitioner cannot be made to wait for more than a decade to know the outcome of his case pending consideration with the respondent No. 1 for relaxation of his age.
Keeping in view of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that respondents have not been able to decide about the relaxation of the age of the petitioner as recommended by the Police Department even after lapse of more than 18/19 years, the relaxation in the age of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been granted. However, keeping in view the fact that this petition has been pending in this Court since the year, 2006 and the petitioner by now is about 52 years old, he may not be in a position to serve in the Police Department as constable. Accordingly, the appointment, which was made by the Director General of Police vide order No. 115 dated 08.01.1999 shall be deemed to be the appointment as Follower.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to immediate and forthwith offer the petitioner the appointment as Follower notwithstanding the fact that at the time of issuance of order of appointment dated 08.01.1999 he was overage by 9 months and 23 days. The appointment of the petitioner as Follower shall date back to the date of issuance of initial order of appointment dated 08.01.1998 but without any service benefits except for the purpose of reckoning as a qualifying service for pension. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits or seniority on that count. Let a formal order of appointment of the petitioner as Follower be passed by the respondents within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order be served upon the respondents.
Disposed of.