Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1031 OF 2005 Om Prakash ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Animal Husbandry, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun and others. ……….. Respondents …………………. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2002 passed by respondent No.4 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. A writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any Class IV post in the department on compassionate ground relaxing the period of limitation for applying therefor. 2. The facts of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner’s father late Sri Prem Ballabh was a regular and confirmed employee with the respondents department on the post of Shepherd. He died of his illness on 31.12.1987 while he was in service leaving behind his widow and two minor children including the 2 petitioner. At the time of his death late Sri Prem Ballabh (the petitioner’s father) was posted in Sheep Farm Daira Tala. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, his mother applied for compassionate appointment and she made an application to this effect on 12.05.1988 but the respondent No.5 in good faith impressed upon his mother that instead of taking a Class IV job she should wait till his only son, the petitioner, attains the age of majority and assured his mother that when the petitioner would attain the age of 18 years, he would be given appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father. At this assurance the mother of the petitioner left the idea of joining the service. After attaining the age of 18 years on 15.05.2002 the petitioner immediately made an application dated 21.05.2002 to the respondent 5 for giving him appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules on any Class IV post. The respondent No.4 vide its letter dated 01.07.2002 without application of mind in a mechanical manner rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation and thus refused to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. The respondents contended that after the creation of State of Uttarakhand the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on 21.05.2002 while the application should have been filed by the petitioner with in five years of the death of his father. The respondents have denied that nobody has assured the petitioner’s mother to give appointment to the petitioner after such a long period. 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The only ground of rejection of the claim of petitioner is that delay of 13 and ½ years cannot be relaxed. Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 contains the provision for recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased who dies in harness which reads as under:- “5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.- (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person- (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and 4 (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the government servant; Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.” 6. The proviso appended to Sub rule (1) of Rule (5) of the aforesaid Dying in Harness Rules clearly empowered the State Government /Appointing Authority to condone the delay in cases where the authority is satisfied. 7. Here in the present case, the delay for not making application by the petitioner within five years was due to underage but immediately after attaining the age for being eligible to be appointed in the government service he moved application. It was sufficient reason to condone the delay. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioner appears unjustified and unreasonable. The State Government/Authority competent to consider the application for appointment in such cases should see that the basic object of insertion of proviso to Rule 5 (1) of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is to grant benefit to the 5 claimant. It is beneficial legislation. It should be interpreted literally in favour of the claimant. In catena of cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a person otherwise entitled to the benefit of a beneficial provision of a statute should not ordinarily be deprived therefrom. 8. Therefore, the respondents are directed to re- consider the matter in the light of observation made above. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh