JUDGEMENT
Binod Kumar Roy, Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. -
(1.)Following prayers have been made in this writ petition by the two petitioners, who are related
as Grandfather and Grandson respectively :
(i) to quash the order dated 17.6.1995 passed by Collector. Farrukhabad (as contained in
Annexure-17) :
(ii) to command respondent No. 1. State of U.P. which has been sued through the District
Magistrate. Farrukhabad, to Issue a certificate of dependant of Freedom fighter ;
(iii) to issue any writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper, and
(iv) to award costs.
1.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows rejection of the petition dated 17.5.1995 filed by the
Petitioner No. 1 before the Collector, Farrukhabad (as contained in Annexure-15) for issuing a
certificate that his Grandson Hari Narain Sharma (petitioner No. 2 herein) is actually dependent
on him.
(2.)The case of the Petitioners, in substance, is as follows :
Since his childhood the petitioner No. 2 has been living with petitioner No. 1 as his dependent
and he has no concern with his father Om Prakash. Petitioner No. 2 is a Diploma holder in Civil
Engineering since 1986 and still unemployed and eligible for being appointed as a Junior
Engineer. The fact that the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the guardian of petitioner No. 2 stands
mentioned in his School Leaving Certificate as contained in Annexure-2. As per the Government
Order dated 7.9.1972 (as contained in Annexure-3 clarifying the earlier Government Order dated
6.2.1972) the grandsons who are dependents of freedom-fighters, are entitled for certificate of
dependent of freedom-fighters which after its deletion by Government Order dated 3.4.1972 (as
contained in Annexure-4) was again included vide Government Order dated 19.1.1977 (as
contained in Annexure-5). Vide another Government Order dated 22.1.1982 (as contained in
Annexure-6). a clarification was issued to the Public Service Commission in respect of
reservation in service for the dependents of freedom-fighters. Vide Government Order dated
15.1.1983 (copy appended as Annexure-7) the facilities provided to the dependents of the
freedom -fighters were made applicable upto 1985 and by another Government Order dated
3.9.1992 (copy appended as Annexure-9) the same was extended upto 31.12.1997. The petitioner
No. 2 being fully dependent on petitioner No. 1 is entitled to such a certificate. In January, 1993
an application was submitted for grant of such a certificate. On the said application, enquiries
were made by the Lekhpal. Kanoongo and Tahsildar. From the report dated 28.12.1993 of the
Lekhpal and reports dated 29.12.1993 of the Kanoongo and Tahsildar submited to the Collector,
Farrukhabad (as contained in Annexure-10) even though it was clear that the petitioner No. 2
was reported to be dependent on the petitioner No. 1 with whom he resides whereas his father
Om Prakash Sharma does "Lohargiri" (blacksmith by profession) yet the District Magistrate,
Farrukhabad, refused to issue the desired certificate. A representation dated 9.2.1994 was made
by the petitioner No. 1 to the Special Secretary, U.P. Government, who vide his order as
contained in letter dated 9.2.1994 (copy appended as Annexure-11) asked the District
Magistrate, Farrukhabad to pass appropriate order in the light of G.O. dated 15,1.1983 . On
8.9.1993 a certificate (copy appended as Annexure-12) was issued to petitioner No. 1 to the
effect that petitioner No. 2 is his grand-son but relying upon the Government Order dated
8.12.1986 it was stated that petitioner No. 2 is not dependent of a freedom-fighter and thus not
entitled to such a certificate. Various efforts were made for issuance of the desired certificate. An
advertisement for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers in the Department of Rural
Engineering Service was published in 1995 pursuance to which petitioner No. 2 applied.
appeared in the written test, called for an interview and was asked by the Public Service
Commission, vide its letter dated 1.3-1995 (copy appended as Annexure-13) to submit such a
certificate, which was served on him on 16.5.1995. On receipt of this letter, another application
dated 18.5.1995 along with his affidavit (copy appended as Annexure-14) was filed by petitioner
No. 1 before the Collector. The Lekhpal vide his report dated 21.5.1995 (copy appended as
Annexure-15) submitted to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 is in fact totally dependent on his
Grandfather who is a freedom-fighter pensioner. The Kanoongo, vide his report dated 24.5.1995
(which is part of Annexure-15 itself) also submitted his report favourably. Despite favourable
reports and recommendations, the desired certificate has not been issued till date, respondent No.
1 has no authority to withhold issuance of the desired certificate. Petitioner No. 2 personally
visited the office of respondent No. 1 on 22.5.1995 and requested him for issuance of the desired
certificate but the latter refused to do anything. The petitioners 'moved this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 15435 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order as contained in Annexure-!6
with a direction to the District Magistrate. Farrukhabad. to decide the representation in
accordance with the Government Order and thereafter vide impugned order the representation
was rejected without giving any opportunity of being heard and thereby it is liable to be set
aside. In rejecting his representation, the District Magistrate has completely ignored and not at
all considered the reports of the Lekhpal and Kanoongo as contained in Annexures-10 and 15,
which were already on the record clearly proving that the petitioner No. 2 came within the
purview of dependent of a freedomfighter. The Public Service Commission is going to declare
the result of selection and it is apprehended that in the absence of desired certificate he may not
be considered and thus an Irreparable loss will be suffered.
(3.)A counter-affidavit, sworn by the Additional Tahsildar, was filed on 11.9.1996 asserting to
the following effect :
He has been authorised to file counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. (leaving the number
blank) who has full knowledge in regard to the facts stated in the writ petition and is competent
to answer them, petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on his grand-father Kanhaiya Lal but on his
father Om Prakash who is doing in Iron grill manufacturing business. In the School Leaving
Certificate the name of Kanhaiya Lal stands entered as a Guardian and the petitioner No. 2 has
not been shown as his dependent. Petitioner No.1 resides with his second son Ram Narain from
which it is clear that even the father of petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on petitioner No.1 ; the
Government Order dated 22.1.1982 clearly states that for civil services merely being a dependent
is not sufficient but one should be factually dependent whereas petitioner No. 2 is in fact not a
dependent on his grandfather and the Government Order in question does not apply ; from the
spot-inspection in question it is clear that petitioner No. 2 is not dependent on his grand-father
but is dependent on his father, the reports relied upon are incomplete besides the Tahsildar, who
is the competent authority, has not submitted his report, but has merely forwarded which has no
justification inasmuch as his report should have been clear and made after a thinking which was
not accepted by the Pargana Adhikari, who recommended for non-issuance of the certificate and
accordingly it was not issued, the Government has not passed any order to issue certificate
without holding a complete enquiry, only reports of a gazetted officer is liable for acceptance
and the reports of Lekhpal and Kanoongo are not acceptable, the petitioners were not found
entitled for issuance of the certificate which can be issued only as per the rules, the Impugned
order has been passed as per the rules in which there is no error, the petitioners are not entitled to
the reliefs prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is
worthy of dismissal with cost.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.