State To Decide Application For Compassionate Appointment If Made After 5 Years, Not Appointing Authority: Allahabad High Court
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held if an application for compassionate appointment is made beyond the permissible limit of 5 years, it is not up to the appointing authority to consider the matter. Justice J.J. Munir held that as per Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the application was to be placed before the State, who would then adjudicate on it.
“A reading of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, apart from the law about the relevant and material facts, on the basis of which, the power to condone a delay beyond five years ought be exercised, shows that the power to condone the delay in making an application about compassionate appointment beyond five years vests in the State Government; not the Appointing Authority”, held the Court.
Case Background
Petitioner's father was employed as a Constable with the Provincial Armed Constabulary, Ghaziabad and passed away in service on 16.11.2013. Her brother had made an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected on medical grounds. Thereafter, upon learning that compassionate appointment can be applied for by any member of the family eligible for employment under the Rules of 1974, she made an application for employment.
Since the Authorities did not reply, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Court directed the Commandant, 41st Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad to adjudicate on the matter. However, the Commandant rejected the application on the ground that it was made after the permissible time limit of 5 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
High Court Verdict
The Court issued a notice to the Commandant asking to explain why he didn't place the petitioner's case before the State authorities. It was observed that as per the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, if an application for compassionate appointment is made beyond a period of 5 years after the death of the deceased government employment, the same has to be decided by the State and not the appointing authority.
“By no stretch of the plain phraseology of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 did the Commandant, acting as the Appointing Authority, had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner's application, seeking compassionate appointment, once it was made beyond the period of five years”, held the Court.
The Court observed that the letter dated 15.04.2024 issued by the Superintendent of Police did not confer jurisdiction on the appointing authority and neither did its direction to determine the petitioner's case. The Court held that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 would prevail over any Government Order issued in the executive power of the State or any circular the Police Headquarters.
“We are constrained to say that the Commandant, 41st Battalion, PAC, Ghaziabad, once she reached the conclusion that the application as beyond the period of five years, envisaged under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 made in the sixth year, as she says, should have laid her hands off the matter and referred it to the State Government, following the course that we have indicated.”
The Court quashed the order passed by the Commandant, 41st Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Ghaziabad and directed that the petitioner's application be placed before the State Government and that she be allowed to make afresh representations before them.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Kajal Kumari v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 7793 OF 2024]