Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. Court held deceased father on working charge was not a government servant and appointment is a temporary deviation; appeal dismissed.
Impugned order dismissing writ petition affirmed; compassionate appointment denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 780 of 2018
Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 9th July, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- A No. 413 of 2018.
By the judgment impugned, learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ upheld decision of the respondent-employer not to treat the appellant-petitioner a person eligible to have appointment on compassionate grounds as per provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1974"). It is not in dispute that the deceased, father of the appellant-petitioner, was working as Baildar in Work Charge Establishment of the Public Works Department. As per Rule 2 (a) of the Rules of 1974, father of the appellant-petitioner was not a Government Servant and, as such, learned Single Bench by relying upon several judgments of this Court including the Full Bench judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (4) UPLBEC 2633 , dismissed the petition for writ.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that father of the appellantpetitioner was entitled to get his service regularized in light of the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on Group-D Posts Rules, 2001, Government Order dated 8th September, 2010 and 21st February, 2011. According to which a daily wager / muster roll employee working since 29th June, 1991 is entitled for regularization in service.
On going through facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced, first for the reasons that late father of the appellant-petitioner in his life time never raised the issue with regard to regularization of his service and further on the count that the appellant-petitioner now
by getting regularization of the services of his father wants appointment on compassionate grounds. It is well settled that an appointment on compassionate grounds is a deviation from the principle of equality in eventuality of untimely death of the sole bread earner of family, such harness is not of permanent nature. Father of the appellant-petitioner died on 7th September, 2007 and now after the lapse of about 11 years, such harness does not exist.
In view of it, the need to deviate from the general principle of equality does not exist. Learned Single Bench in our considered opinion rightly arrived at the conclusion that father of the appellant-petitioner being an employee on Working Charge Establishment was not a Government Servant and, therefore, in light of the law laid-down by the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) no appointment on compassionate grounds could have been given.
The appeal, as such, is having no merits, hence is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018 Rameez
(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person employed on working charge can claim appointment on compassionate grounds.
Whether regularization of the deceased father retrospectively creates a right to compassionate appointment long after death.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶6
Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (4) UPLBEC 2633
Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶10
Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra)
Mithilesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
