RAJNISH KUMAR Vs. SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's father was working as a draftsman and died in harness on 3rd December, 1997. An application dated 8th September, 1998 was filed praying for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. This application was ultimately rejected by an order dated 27th March, 2002, against which, the Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 1262 of 202 (S/S), which was allowed by a judgment dated 25th August, 2004. The ground for rejecting the application of the Petitioner by the Respondents was that only 5% of the vacancies was reserved for persons to be appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme and that the Petitioner could not be accommodated in that 5% of vacancies. Further, a sum of Rs. 2.02,236/- was paid to the widow, which mitigates the hardship and therefore, there was no requirement to give an appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. The writ court, while allowing the writ petition, held that there was nothing to indicate that the persons, who were given appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme under the 5% quota, were more deserving to the Petitioner or had bigger liabilities. The court further found that payment of Rs. 2.02,236/-, which was towards gratuity and provident fund, could not be taken into consideration to mitigate the hardship nor could the said amount be considered to mitigate the financial hardship that would fall on the family upon the death or the deceased. The court further found that the Petitioner has a widow mother and two unmarried sisters to look after them and that the Petitioner was a member of a scheduled caste and had only applied for a group "D" post, which ought to have been considered. The court while allowing the writ petition, accordingly, directed the Respondents to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the Court.

(2.) Pursuant to the order of the court, the authority reconsidered the matter and again rejected the application of the Petitioner by an order dated 8-12-2004. The authority held that 5% of the vacancies are reserved for appointment of persons under the dying-in-harness scheme in the regular cadre and that till the year 2001, there were 184 applications for 24 vacancies. The Respondents further found that the committee did not find the case of the Applicant to be a fit case for appointment, since the family was paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,236/- and that the age of the deceased was 55 years and due to limited vacancies, appointment could not be offered. The Petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) The Respondents have rejected the application of the Petitioner on the same grounds, which was set aside by the Court by its earlier order. This Court finds that prima facie the Respondents have committed a contempt of the order of the court and instead of considering the observations made by the court, the Respondents have rejected the application on the same grounds, which was not accepted by the court while allowing the writ by its judgment dated 25th August, 2004. This Court by an order dated 30th December, 2009 granted an opportunity to the Respondents to cure the defect and reconsider the case of the Petitioner. Further time was granted to the Respondents by an order dated 17-2-2010. Inspite of time being granted, the Respondents have not reconsidered the matter. Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that he has been instructed to inform the court that the Respondents are agreeable to reconsider the matter but no time frame was indicated. This Court had categorically directed the Respondents to reconsider the matter within a time bound period, which they were not agreeable. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter and keeping the matter in limbo, especially when the Respondents and its committee members are not adhering to the orders of the writ court and are working at their own pace and according to their whims and fancies. This Court finds that the Petitioner's father had died in the year, 1997 and thirteen years have elapsed and the matter has not been finalised till date. It would be a travesty of the justice, if this Court remits the matter again and directs the authorities to reconsider the matter. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition should be decided on merits.