Allowed

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 4 Ors. v. Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023SPLA/581/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal was dismissed. The Single Judge's order, which allowed compassionate appointment to a daily wager, was set aside relying on the Full Bench decision in Pawan Kumar Yadav, holding such employees are not government servants under the relevant 1974 Rules.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.307 (S/S) of 2006 are set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed.

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 581 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag And 4 Ors.

¶3

Respondent :- Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006 Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- Mayankar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Amitabh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State/appellants and perused the material brought on record. However, none appears on behalf of respondent to press this appeal.

¶6

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the appellants/State of U.P. challenging the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.307 (S/S) of 2006: Sabiha Parveen vs. State of U.P. and others .

¶7

The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the respondent/petitioner pleading that her husband has died on 22.04.2003 while working in work charge establishment as a daily wager. The respondent/petitioner had sought employment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government

¶8

Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred

¶9

to as "Rules, 1974") but his application was rejected on the ground that her husband was working in work charge establishment and as per Government orders dated 26.09.1990

¶10

and 01.06.1995, the dependents of work charge employees, who had worked as work charge employee, were not entitled for compassionate appointment. Relying upon the judgments in Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others: (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337 and other similar matters, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the dependents of the deceased work charge were also entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1974.

¶11

While assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State/appellants has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others: 2010 (4) UPLBEC 2633: 2011 (1) AWC 1028 , wherein the Full Bench held that:-

¶12

" A daily wager and workcharge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, 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 U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules."

¶13

In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge holding that the dependants of the deceased work charge employee are also entitled for

¶14

compassionate appointment under Rules, 1974, is unsustainable.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant special appeal is allowed . The judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.307 (S/S) of 2006, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. Subject to the condition that order under challenge has not complied with already.

¶16

There will be no order as to costs.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Shubhankar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 4 Ors. v. Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 4 Ors. v. Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arunendra Mohan Shukla P.I.L. Vs Election Commission of India Thr.Chief Election Commissioner

Amit Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of U.P.Throu.Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Ors.

Hari Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Chief Secy.Govt.of U.P.Lko.and Ors.

Jitendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Manoj Kumar Dubey Advocate S/O Ram Mani Nath Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas and Anr.

Gomti Nagar Jan Kalyan Maha Samiti Lucknow Vs State of U.P.through Secy Nagar Vikas and 7 Ors.