VINOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Shukla, Assistant Solicitor General of India for opposite party no. 1 and 2. Sri R.K. Shukla, Assistant Solicitor General of India for opposite party no. 1 and 2. has no objection if the petition is decided today. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in harness on 4.3. 2003. The petitioner applied immediately for his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, but he was not given the appointment by the opposite parties. Perhaps due to some incomplete documentation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing no. 6911(SS) 07, in which this Court showing indulgence directed the opposite parties to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of three months. The opposite parties decided the case of the petitioner on paper but actually rejected it, by not giving him any appointment. When the contempt petition was moved, it was contended before the Court by the opposite parties that the direction of this Court in W.P. No.6911(SS) 07, has been complied with, as technically the representation of the petitioner had been decided. It appears that the stand of the opposite parties today is that since the petitioner has been able to survive for more than three years, hence there is no need for giving him appointment under the dying in harness rules. If this stand is allowed to be taken by the opposite parties, then whole philosophy of Dying in Harness Rules will be negated by fallacy of their argument. In some matters, if the applicant has survived for more than three years, then it can be presumed that he has been able to tide over the immediate crisis, which was brought upon the family by the death of its bread earner in harness but in the present case, the petitioner had been approaching the opposite parties right from the year 2003. The case of the petitioner was never rejected outright. He was made to understand that due to lack of certain documents he is not being given the appointment. He was forced to knock the door of the judiciary and approach this Court. This Court showed indulgence and having faith in the fairness of the Executive, directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner, as there was some factual discrepancies in the documents of the petitioner. It may be stated here that whenever the High Court or any Superior Court of this land, directs the executive authorities to decide any controversy, then it is under a faith that in a welfare State, the action of the authorities will be fair. Moreover, our country being a welfare State, the action of the State is expected to be benevolent. The hyper technical pleas taken by the higher auth