RAM PANDEY TRIBHUVAN PANDEY Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition arises out of the impugned order dated 19.3.2002 by which respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.

(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner who was working as Diwan in the police department died on 12.6.1978 while in active service. The petitioner was born after about six months from the date of the death of his father. The petitioner passed his High School Examination in the year 1995 and Intermediate in 1997. The petitioner is the only son of late Sri Tribhuwan Pandey. As soon as the petitioner became major and completed 18 years of age, an application supported by an affidavit was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Varansi to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. On the basis of the aforesaid application, the Superintendent of Police has recommended the case of the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 12.1.1997. Certain information was required and the petitioner submitted the information, which was sought by the respondents. An inquiry was made and the report was submitted with a recommendation that the orders be passed regarding further action in the matter. The petitioner submits that various formalities namely medical test, police verification and ability test were completed. The various letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police for taking action regarding the appointment of the petitioner. But the application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents and a communication to this effect has been made by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the petitioner vide its letter dated 28.8.1999. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of Writ Petition No. 23907 of 2000 which was finally decided on 21.5.2001 and this Court has directed that a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary for necessary information and further direction for introducing mandatory provision in the relevant rules providing for compassionate appointment within three months of production of certified copy of this judgment.

(3.) The petitioner submits that as directed earlier a comprehensive representation was submitted by the petitioner but the respondent without taking into consideration the judgment of this Court has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules vide its order dated 19.3.2001. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition.