Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.

Delay Condonation Application No. 9738 of 2011

Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, does not object to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application.

Special Appeal No. 217 of 2011

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal.

A government employee, by the name Babu Ram, died in harness on 7th June, 1992. At the time of his death, he was still working as a peon. On 30th December, 1992, Appellant, holding out to be the adopted son of Babu Ram, applied for a compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which has been adopted by this State after its creation. On 3rd November, 2001, Appellant was asked to submit documents in support of his claim. Soon thereafter, he submitted all documents in support of his claim. By the order dated 13th July, 2004, it was held out to the Appellant that since he has failed to submit all necessary documents in support of his claim within five years from the date of death, the case of the Appellant could not be considered under the provisions of the said Rules. In the meantime, on 7th August, 2003, Appellant obtained a decree from a civil court, suggesting that he is son of the deceased government employee, Babu Ram.

It does not appear that a certified copy of this decree was submitted to the Government before the decision of the Government, contained in its letter dated 13th July, 2004, was conveyed by the letter dated 13th July, 2004. Prior thereto, Appellant had submitted copy of an adoption deed dated 27th October, 1973. This deed is not a registered deed. The challenge, thrown by the Appellant to the decision dated 13th July, 2004, has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal, principally, on the ground that the family lost the breadwinner in 1992 and if the family could survive for 21 years despite losing the breadwinner, there is no just reason to accord an appointment under the said Rules. We are ad idem with the principle of law thus laid down in the judgment and order under appeal.

Before us, it was contended that the application was made within six months from the date of death and nine years thereafter, documents in support of the claim were sought from the Appellant. Immediately, Appellant supplied all necessary documents. Even then, the ultimate decision was taken in 2004. There was, therefore, delay, if any, on the part of the State and not on the part of the Appellant. The facts, thus narrated, are not in dispute. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the delay, if any, was on the part of the State and they unjustly procrastinated the matter until 13th July, 2004. The Appellant, for such procrastination, cannot be blamed. However, the fact remains that despite obtaining a decree on 7th August, 2003, Appellant did not submit a certified copy thereof to the State on or before the date the State took the decision not to accord benefit of the said Rules to the Appellant.

We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.