Dismissed

Mohd. Asif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2024/8309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State Government's order declining to condone delay in a compassionate appointment application. The court held the order was not perverse despite the petitioner's financial need, given the substantial family pension and extraordinary pension received.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Mohd. Asif Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7877

¶3

Court No. - 25

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8309 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Mohd. Asif Khan

¶6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Ojha,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Istekhaf Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶8

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

¶9

2. Admit.

¶10

3. Heard forthwith.

¶11

4. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the State Government declining to condone the delay in making the application for compassionate appointment.

¶12

5. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are these:

¶13

The petitioner’s father was a Sub-Inspector of Police and posted at Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad). He met with a road accident on 28.06.1999 and died an untimely death on the said date. The petitioner's mother had predeceased his father and passed away six months earlier after prolonged illness. The petitioner’s grandmother, therefore, made an application seeking compassionate appointment for another son of hers in order to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis. That application of the petitioner’s grandmother was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Prayagraj on ground that the deceased employee's brother is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘the Rules’) . The petitioner was a minor at the

¶14

¶15

time. His grandmother, therefore, made another application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Prayagraj requesting him to reserve a post for the petitioner until time he attains the age of majority.

¶16

6. It is the petitioner’s case that his grandmother endeavoured her best to ensure that the petitioner got a compassionate appointment under the Rules and made a number of representations addressed to the respondents on the issue. In response to the various representations moved by the petitioner’s grandmother, the respondents sought a slew of information from her, also requesting documents to be furnished for the purpose of considering the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s grandmother, after completing all the requisite formalities as demanded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj vide letter dated 05.01.2024 submitted his application form accompanied by all the necessary documents by registered post on 26.07.2004.

¶17

7. The petitioner says in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition that after a lapse of more than six years, when there was no response to the application submitted by the petitioner’s grandmother, she moved another representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj on 18.03.2010, in response whereto, she was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj vide memo dated 18.03.2010 that the petitioner was a minor, and, therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment could not be extended to him. At the same time, the Senior Superintendent of Police said that she could meet him in person on any working day in his office so that necessary steps may be taken for her grandson’s compassionate appointment.

¶18

8. The petitioner’s grandmother met the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Prayagraj in the first week of April but the Officer sent another memo dated 08.04.2010 where the same stand was taken as in the Senior Superintendent of Police’s memo of 18.03.2010. It was said

¶19

¶20

that the petitioner’s grandson would not become a major in the time period of five years, and, therefore, it is not possible to consider her grandson’s case for compassionate appointment.

¶21

9. The petitioner completed his higher education, as he says, and then again approached the respondents along with his grandmother seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents are said to have not at all responded. The petitioner moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj and addressed another to the Director General of Police, U.P. seeking further action. The Director General of Police vide his memo dated 29.11.2022 informed the petitioner that his case has been forwarded to the State Government for taking a decision in the matter. The State Government, after considering the petitioner’s case, rejected the petitioner’s application which was fourteen years, seven months and eight days beyond the prescribed time period of five years. No case for condonation of delay on the merits of his case, for the cause shown, was held to be made out in the petitioner’s favour.

¶22

10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents resisting the petitioner claim.

¶23

11. Heard Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.A. Maurya, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

12. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner's father, a SubInspector of Police, died in a road accident on 28.06.1999. His wife had predeceased him after a prolonged illness on 18.11.1998. The petitioner was born on 10.08.1994, and, therefore, at the time of his father’s demise he was less than five years old. He attained the age of majority on 10.08.2012, passed his High School in the year 2009 and Intermediate Examination in the year 2012. The petitioner earned his B.A. degree in the year 2015 and law degree in the year 2018. It is then that he applied

¶25

¶26

for a consideration of his case for appointment as a Sub-Inspector on compassionate grounds.

¶27

13. The respondents have urged that if the petitioner was indeed in a financial crisis and in dire need of employment to bail him out of that crisis, he should have applied immediately, upon attaining the age of majority. The petitioner moved his application for compassionate appointment on 15.11.2018, that is to say, six years, three months and five days after he attained majority on 10.08.2012. There is no dispute about the aforesaid fact in the writ petition, though it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that his grandmother had moved applications well within time on 18.03.2010 and 08.04.2010, both of which were rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Prayagraj, respondent no. 2.

¶28

14. So far as the petitioner’ case that the two applications dated 18.03.2010 and 08.04.2010 moved within time by his grandmother that were rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) is concerned, suffice it to say that those applications were made at a time when the petitioner was still a minor. His claim at that stage was not at all maintainable. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) and the Senior Superintendent of Police, respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively, had both pointed out that by the time the petitioner attains majority, the claim for compassionate appointment would be beyond limitation. But that is not the end of the matter. After all, a claim for compassionate appointment by a minor can be entertained and it would seldom be the case that the period of five years of limitation prescribed under the Rules would not be over by time a minor dependant of the deceased attains majority. It is also possible that there might not be another person eligible after the deceased's death to claim compassionate appointment, as the case here. In fact, the petitioner's grandmother attempted to secure employment for her other son, but he was ineligible under the Rules and that claim was, therefore, rightly rejected.

¶29

¶30

15. In a situation, as the present case one, the State Government is invested with the power to condone the delay in making an application for compassionate appointment. It is for the said reason that the Director General of Police when approached by the petitioner for the purpose made a reference of the matter to the State Government.

¶31

16. A perusal of paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State shows that acting on the application made beyond time by the petitioner, a proposal was prepared on the specified 31 points and sent to the Government through the Police Headquarters, U.P., Lucknow. It was after production of all necessary documents regarding the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law that the proposal for relaxation of limitation of five years was not acceded to by the Government.

¶32

17. It is noticed in the impugned order that the petitioner made his application for compassionate appointment, not immediately after he attained the age of majority. It is remarked that the application was made six years, three months and five days after he attained majority. This fact finds mention in the impugned order. The other factors that were considered were that the petitioner received extraordinary pension of Rs. 14,000/- per month from the year 2001 to the year 2012. Another factor that was taken into consideration is that the deceased employee’s family, that is to say, his grandmother was in receipt of a family pension to the tune of Rs. 23,700/- per month, and further, that the family had an income of Rs. 3,500/- per month from other sources. The total delay in applying for compassionate appointment was a period of fourteen years, four months and seventeen days beyond the prescribed time limit of five years.

¶33

18. It is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of employment. It is a special scheme designed for the family of a deceased government servant who dies in harness, plunging the family into a sudden economic crisis. If, for some reason, there is no member of the family old enough and eligible to claim employment, a

¶34

¶35

minor family member’s claim for compassionate appointment, beyond the time period of five years, may be considered, provided it is made within a reasonable time after the minor dependant attains majority. More than that, what has to be considered is if the family of the deceased employee have indeed continued to suffer under the shadow of the economic crisis caused by the demise of the government servant in harness.

¶36

19. In this case, after evaluation of facts, such as the period of time after attaining majority that the petitioner took to move seeking compassionate appointment, the special pension received by him for a substantial period of time, the family pension being received by his grandmother and the period of time taken by him in pursuing higher education, the respondents have concluded against condonation of delay. In fact, in cases like these, the question of granting a condonation and the merits of the claim may have some obliterated lines. The conduct and circumstances of the petitioner have been duly considered by the respondents to conclude that it is not a case where sufficient cause to condone the delay and offer the petitioner compassionate appointment was made out. That conclusion, in our opinion, is not perverse or manifestly illegal.

¶37

20. In our considered opinion, the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶38

21. This writ petition consequently, fails and is dismissed .

¶39

22. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Prashant D.

¶41

(J.J. Munir, J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Asif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Asif Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and Another

Ahmad Abrar and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Saurabh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Mahesh Prasad Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Lko and 2 Others