Dismissed

hira lal singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2018SPLA/321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition for compassionate appointment. The court upheld the finding that work charge employees are not 'government servants' under the relevant rules and thus their dependants are not entitled to compassionate appointment.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment.

hira lal singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No.39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 321 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Hira Lal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Rai,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.

¶6

This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 February 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974¹ , has been dismissed. In the writ petition, the order dated 4 July 2015 rejecting the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment was challenged.

¶7

It is not in dispute that the father of the appellant, who was working in a Work-Charge Establishment, died in harness on 22 November 2007. The claim of the appellant for providing compassionate appointment was earlier rejected by order dated 11 September 2008 but the writ petition filed by the appellant to assail the said order was allowed on 21 April 2015 for the reason that the name of the father of the appellant was included in the list of 52 persons prepared for their regularisation. It is stated that the name of Chini Singh was also shown at serial no.15 in the said list and on his death, his son was given compassionate appointment.

¶8

1 the Rules

¶9

¶10

The learned Judge has recorded a finding on the basis of documents on record that the son of Chini Singh was granted compassionate appointment because the services of his father were regularised, whereas the services of the father of the appellant were not regularised.

¶11

The issue, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether a dependant of a person working in a Work-Charge Establishment is entitled for compassionate appointment. This issue has been decided against the appellant by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others² .

¶12

The Full Bench in Pawan Kumar Yadav , after pointing out the difference between a person appointed in a regular establishment and in a work charge establishment, held that a work charged employee engaged in connection with the affairs of the State, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Rules and thus his dependants, on his death in harness, are not entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rules. The reasons given by the Full Bench for recording this finding are :-

¶13

“20. In respect of the employees the State Government in Irrigation Department, Public Works Department, Minor Irrigation, Rural Engineering Services, Grounds Water Department has provided for employment in the regular establishment and workcharge establishment. The person appointed in regular establishment are appointed against a post, after following due

¶14

2 2010 (8) ADJ 664

¶15

¶16

procedure prescribed under the rules. In workcharge establishment the employees are not appointed by following any procedure or looking into their qualification. They do not work against any post or regular vacancy. They only get consolidated salary under the limits of sanction provided by Government Order dated 6th April, 1929 . The conditions of their employment is provided in paragraphs 667, 668 and 669 of Chapter XXI under the Head of Establishment in Financial Hand Book Volume IV. Their payments are provided to be made in same Financial Hand Book Volume IV in Paragraph Nos.458, 459, 460, 461, 462 and 463.

¶17

Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that by Government Order dated 1.1.2000 Paragraphs 667, 668 and 669 of Financial Hand Book Volume 4 have been deleted and that thereafter the payments are not being made to them from the budget allotted from the regular establishment, and they are not entitled to any allowance or pensionary benefits. They are paid from contingencies and are required to work until the work is available. The services of workcharge employees are regularised only when regular vacancy is available. Until then they cannot be treated as government servants .”

¶18

(emphasis supplied)

¶19

The Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.³ , after placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 440 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunji Raman, (1997) 2 SCC 517 as also the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav , held that the work charged employees constitute a distinct class and they cannot be equated with regular employees and that the work charged employees are not entitled to the service benefits which are admissible to regular employees under the relevant rules.

¶20