ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to Order No. CEJ/Adm/12 of 2011 dated 14.01.2011 issued by the Chief Engineer, Electric, Maintenance & R.E. Wing, respondent No. 4 herein, and Govt. Order No. 214 -PDD of 2011 dated 18.07.2011 issued by Deputy Secretary to Government, Power Development Department, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the case of petitioner under SRO 43 of 1994 for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The facts -in -brief are that the brother of petitioner, namely, Rama Kant was working as a Technician -III in STD Udhampur, who died in harness on 18.10.2009 due to electrocution. Petitioner herein applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994. Meanwhile petitioner also filed SWP No. 2439/2009 in this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for his appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court vide order dated 03.12.2010, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for his appointment under SRO 43 on its own merits, besides his request for relaxation of age be also considered. Consequently, respondent No. 4 issued Order No. CEJ/Adm/12 of 2011 dated 14.01.2011, and, thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued Govt. Order No. 214 -PDD of 2011 dated 18.07.2011 rejecting the case of petitioner on the ground that at the time of death of his brother he was over aged by more than five years, therefore, was not covered under the relaxation policy/SRO 43 of 1994.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the present draft Relaxation Policy is neither a legislation nor a Government order under Business Rules, therefore, the opinion of General Administration Department in rejecting his case is wrong. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the language of SRO 43 has never put any embargo over the power of Government to relax the age or qualification, therefore, the Government is within its power to relax the age of petitioner. It is contended that though the case of petitioner was recommended by the Power Development Commissioner to the Government for relaxation of his upper age, but the respondents rejected his case merely on technicalities. It is averred that several persons who were over aged by more than 5 to 8 years have been granted the age relaxation, but in case of petitioner he has been denied the same treatment. It is further averred that the petitioner sought information from the Public Information Officer of the General Administration Department, but he has not been provided with the same. Thus, it is contended that both the orders impugned are arbitrary and not in conformity with law laid down on the subject. It is submitted that SRO 43 was amended and Rule 7 incorporated to enable the respondents to relax the statutory requirements of lower or upper age limits or educational/technical qualification in deserving cases.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record.