RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that his father working as Constable in Civil Police of Uttar Pradesh died in a road accident on 17th June, 1992. THE petitioner after having obtained Intermediate Qualification sought for compassionate appointment under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as (1974 Rules) but vide impugned order dated 19th December, 2002 the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri has rejected his claim only on the ground that the petitioner's father while unauthorizedly traveling by a Matador, met an accident, therefore, his death cannot be said to have occurred in the course of employment and he is not entitled for any compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. He submits that the ground on which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected is totally non-est, illegal and contrary to the provision of 1974 Rules.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid Rules make it clear that the only thing relevant for application of the Rule is whether the deceased person was in the employment of the State Government or not. The term "government servant" and "deceased Government" servant has also been defined under Rules 2 (a) and 2 (b) which reads as under : "2. (a) "government Servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who - (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment. (b) "deceased Government servant" means a Government servant who dies while in service. "