MUMTAZ BEGAM Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.04.2013, a copy of which is Annexure 8 to the petition by which the Respondent No. 2, i.e Director General of Police, U.P Lucknow has rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of extension in the time limit for the purpose of the petitioner being considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly his representation has been rejected. A further prayer is for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and provide suitable appointment to the petitioner no. 2 after providing the relaxation in the time schedule fixed in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1974)

(3.) The case set forth by the petitioners is that the petitioner is no. 1 is the wife of Mohd. Naim Khan and the petitioner no. 2 is the son. Mohd. Naim Khan was posted as Station Officer, Police Station- Rasulpur District Firozabad and died in the line of duty in an encounter on 25.08.1996. He was honoured for his gallantry posthumously. Upon the death of her husband, the petitioner no 1, who is handicapped, represented to the authorities that she is unable to serve in the Department in place of her husband and her children are minor and thus prayed that till her son attained majority, a post be kept reserved, to which a reply dated 24.09.1996, a copy of which Annexure No.3 to the writ petition was given by the respondents indicating that there is no provision for keeping a post reserved/vacant for compassionate appointment where the dependent is a minor, but in case the dependents apply on attaining majority then their case would be considered for compassionate appointment. It is further contended that the petitioner no 2 upon attaining majority applied for being given appointment on compassionate ground and his application was duly forwarded by the respondent no 1 for decision as per the Government order. The petitioner no 2 was also informed by the letter that 18.11.2008 that his case has been referred to the State Government for relaxation in the time limit for the purpose of compassionate appointment as the claim has been made after five years from the date of death of the employee concerned. Copy of the said letter dated 18.11.2008 is Annexure No 8 of the writ petition. Thereafter, through order dated 05.03.2009, a copy of which is Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition, the respondents informed the petitioner no 2 that the Government has not found any justification for relaxing the time limit of five years. The order being non speaking, the petitioner filed the present petition for being considered for compassionate appointment and this Court by order dated 04.03.2013 while requiring the respondents to file counter affidavit also permitted the petitioners to move a fresh representation to the respondent no 2 for redressal of grievances which was directed to be considered by the respondent no 2 in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, representation was made by the petitioners which has resulted in the respondent no 2 passing the impugned order dated 30.04.2013, a copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition by which the claim of the petitioner no 2 for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that it has not been found feasible to grant extension in time limit of five years for the purpose of consideration for compassionate appointment.