VAIBHAV TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER's father was working as a Constable in Civil Police. He went missing from 31.1.1998. When there was no trace of his whereabouts, the mother of the petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 17.9.1998 at Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. After expiry of period of 7 years, his civil death was presumed and the respondents treating him to be dead, proceeded to sanction and release family pension to the mother of the petitioner and also released Gratuity, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance etc. Mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 28.7.2005 before the Superintendent of Police for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner. When no action was taken, another application dated 27.12.2006 was moved before the U.P. Police Headquarter, vide letter dated 23.6.2007, Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), Police Headquarter called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Ballia. The petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2008 on the ground that there is no provision under the Dying-in-Hamess Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules) to give compassionate appointment to the heirs of missing person, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment.

(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.