■ आश्रित की नियुक्ति में मौत की वजह बाधक नहीं: कोर्ट
इलाहाबाद : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि मृत हो चुके किसी कर्मचारी की मौत की वजह स्पष्ट न होने पर उसके आश्रित को नियुक्ति देने से इन्कार करना गलत है। मृतक आश्रित सेवा नियमावली के अंतर्गत आश्रित को नियुक्ति पाने का अधिकार है। चंदन राज गोपाल को आश्रित के रूप में नियुक्ति देने से पंचायती राज विभाग इलाहाबाद के इन्कार करने के आदेश तथा आदेश की चुनौती याचिका खारिज करने के आदेश को कोर्ट ने रद कर दिया है। राज्य सरकार को नियमानुसार नए सिरे से याची की नियुक्ति पर निर्णय लेने का आदेश दिया है।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण टंडन तथा न्यायमूर्ति ऋतुराज अवस्थी की खंडपीठ ने चंदन राज गोपाल की विशेष अपील को स्वीकार करते हुए दिया है। याची के पिता गोपाल कृष्ण मिश्र सोरांव में पंचायत विभाग में सेवारत थे। सेवाकाल में उनकी मौत हो गयी। मौत का कारण संदिग्ध होने के चलते प्राथमिकी दर्ज की गयी। विवेचना सीबीसीआइडी कर रही है।
Deputy Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 427 of 2017
Appellant :- Chandan Raj Gopal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2017, passed in Writ-A No.20806 of 2017.
Facts relevant for deciding the present special appeal are as under:
Father of the writ petitioner namely Gopal Krishna Mishra is stated to be employed as Village Development Officer and was posted at Soraon, District Allahabad at the relevant time. It is stated that the father suffered untimely death on 31.08.2015 and an FIR in respect of his unnatural death has also been registered being Case Crime No.191 of 2015, Police Station Sangipur, District Pratapgarh.
The petitioner who claims to be dependent son of late Gopal Krishna Mishra made an application for compassionate appointment being offered to him under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules 1974. Since his application for such compassionate appointment was not being processed he approached the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India by means of Writ-A No.20806 of 2017. This writ petition has been dismissed under the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2017 only on the ground that FIR has been registered and the matter has been referred for investigation to CBCID, wherein it is to be examined as to whether the father of the petitioner was murdered or he had committed suicide. Therefore till the matter is concluded by CBCID no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits before us that cause of death of a government servant dying during harness is of no relevance so far as the right of compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules is concerned. He submits that the writ court has failed to take note of the purpose of compassionate appointment as provided for under 1974 Rules.
The Apex Court has repeatedly held that that compassionate appointments are offered to mitigate against undue hardship faced by the dependants due sudden death of the bread earner.
The cause of death of the bread earner is not an issue to be examined for consideration of claim of the compassionate appointment except when it may be alleged that the claimant himself has caused the death to the bread earner.
We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that CBCID is still to examine the cause of death of father of petitioner.
Normally we would have restored the writ petition and would have required the learned Single Judge to decide the same afresh. We are deliberately not doing so inasmuch as in our opinion the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to be offered or not needs to be appropriately dealt with by the respondent no.3 in view of the observations made above.
From the record we find that the petitioner had approached this court earlier by means of Writ Petition No.741 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 1.1.2017 requiring the authority concerned to examine the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The authority concerned vide order dated 18.4.2017 refused to entertain the claim of petitioner for such compassionate appointment only on the ground that investigation in the matter of cause of death of father of the petitioner is still pending and till the issue in that regard is resolved the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be examined.
We have already held hereinabove that the cause of death of the bread earner is of no consequence so far as the 1974 Rules are concerned except when the claimant himself is alleged to have caused death to the bread earner.
In view of the aforesaid the order passed by the authority concerned dated 18.4.2017 as well as the order passed by learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner for such compassionate appointment in any manner and it is for the authorities to examine all aspects of the matter that may be relevant.
Special appeal is allowed.
(Ritu Raj Awasthi, J)(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 21.8.2017
Ram.
