HEMANT SINGH SHISHODIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The petitioner's claim was not being adhered to for compassionate appointment. The petitioner approached this Court by means of a Writ Petition No. 55422 of 2012 which was disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order.

(2.) The impugned order dated 30.11.2012 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting the claim of the petitioner as being time barred inasmuch as the claim has been decided after five years of the death of the employee.

(3.) The District Inspector of Schools while passing of the impugned order has recorded that the application had been moved in January, 2005 and sent by the Principal in 2006. Once this fact remains undisputed then there is no default on the part of the petitioner so as to invoke the provision relating to limitation of five years, inasmuch as, the application being within time, there was no requirement seeking relaxation due to the inaction of the respondent. Clause 5 of the Statute does not in any way restrict the same and only prohibits the moving of the application after five years. The application in this case had been moved by the petitioner before the expiry of five years. The District Inspector of Schools has clearly misconstrued the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Statute 21.06 of the relevant Statutes applicable to the controversy that have been quoted in the impugned order dated 30.11.2012. The impugned order therefore has proceeded on erroneous facts as well as law and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside.