STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. GOPAL SINGH KANWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the respondent writ petitioner was in service to which the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Rules") applied. Father of the respondent writ petitioner died in harness as a result of a motor accident. The date of the death of the father of the respondent is 14th January, 1991. The father of the respondent, having died in harness and at the time of his death, his wife being not in service, a member of the family of the father of the respondent became entitled to a compassionate appointment. For that, amongst others, it was a requirement to apply within 5 years from the date of death. The mother of the respondent applied for such appointment, but, inasmuch as she did not have the minimum prescribed qualification for being appointed at the lowest rank in the Government, she could not be appointed. The respondent was born on 25th June, 1980. He became a major on 25th June, On 25th June, 1998, he applied for being appointed on 1998. compassionate ground, in terms of the said Rules for his father died in harness. This application was processed and forwarded by the District Magistrate, Almora to the Secretary, Personnel Department of the Government. This was done on 5th August, 1998. On 1st February, 1999, the Government, taking note of the fact that the respondent had applied beyond 5 years from the date of death of his father, apparently, refused to consider the prayer of the respondent for a compassionate appointment.

(2.) This order of the Government became the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition filed in 2000. By the judgment and order under appeal, passed on 27th February, 2008, a learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with a direction upon the State to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The learned Judge, while noting the facts of the case, opined that the delay for not making application within time was due to underage, and immediately after attaining the age for being eligible for appointment as Government servant, the application was made. The learned Judge, thereupon, held that the same was sufficient reason to condone the delay.

(3.) In the present appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by the said observation of the Hon'ble Judge. The learned counsel submitted before us that the letter of the Government, impugned in the writ petition, would make it amply clear that the prayer for appointment was rejected solely because the application was made beyond 5 years from the date of the death of the father of the respondent and, for some reason or the other, the Government did not go into the question whether it was a case for condonation of delay. The fact remains that the said Rules specifically authorises the State Government to condone the delay, if the State Government is satisfied that the time fixed for making the application has caused undue hardship in any particular case and, while being satisfied, the Rules mandate the Government to consider each case in just and equitable manner. From the order of the Government dated 1st February, 1999, impugned in the writ petition, it does not appear that the Government applied its mind to exercise such power of condonation of delay. That having not been done, we think, while the matter was remitted back to the Government, Government should have also been authorised to consider whether it is an appropriate case for condonation of delay or not.