Narsingh Rawat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Rajiv Joshi, J

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Narain Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to appoint the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on any Class IV post in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia.

The brief of facts of the present case are that the mother of the petitioner namely Janki Devi was working as Class IV employee (Sweeper) in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia who died on 29.6.1999 in harness during service period. After the death of his mother, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as the 'Rules of 1974') before the Principal Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia on several occasions thereafter, Principal of the Institution forwarded the application of the Petitioner on 22.06.2002 to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia for consideration of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, which remain pending till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has completed all the required formalities for his compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974. however, the respondent-authorities did not give any response with regard to the same. It is further submitted that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but the delay on the part of the state-respondent, the petitioner was fulfilled all the conditions for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa and Ors (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 936 of 2022) decided on 20th May, 2022.

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel submits that at the time of death, petitioner was minor and his age was 15 years, 4 four month and 16 days. It is next submitted that application of the petitioner for appointment of compassionate ground has been received in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia in the year-2020, there is no questions of delay on the part of the respondent authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools, District- Ballia. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1001; Govt. of India & Anr. Vs. P Venkatesh reported in 2019 (15) SCC 613 and Central Bank of India Vs. Nitin reported in Manu/SC/1151 of 2022 in which, it is held that appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of deceased employee shall not be entitled.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The mother of the petitioner died in harness on 26.9.1999 and at that time, age of the petitioner was 15 years four months and 16 days. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his mother on attaining the majority before the Principal of the Institution, who forwarded the said application along with the relevant records to the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on 22.6.2002, which is apparent from the annexure no.3 to the counter affidavit. The annexure C.A.-2 filed along with counter affidavit is not the report/comment which was alleged to be sought from the Principal of the Institution on 26.9.2020, it is only information after filing the present writ petition and in the said letter, report was sought form the Principal of the Institution within one week which is apparent from the paragraph no.8 to the counter affidavit.

The letter of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 22.9.2020 is quoted as under:-

From the letter of the Principal, it is apparent that there is six posts of Class-IV employees, but no one is working on the post of Sweeper in the Institution.

It is apparent from the counter affidavit of the State that there was no fault or delay on the part of the petitioner and there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the petitioner should not be made to suffer.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy (Supra) has held as under:-

"7. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all through out there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed hereinabvove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.

The judgment cited on behalf of the State is not applicable in the present case as there were a delay on behalf of the dependents of the deceased employee and the said judgment are not applicable in the present case.

In view of the above, discussions, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974 as per his application which was received in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Ballia on 22.6.2002 and if the petitioner is otherwise found to eligible to appoint him on the Class-IV in the Institution namely Amar Shahid Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, Ballia, District- Ballia.

The aforesaid exercise should be completed by the concerned respondents within period of four weeks from today and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits from the date of his appointment only.

In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.