Quashed

Deepak Kala v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC22 Nov 2016WPSS/2022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a seasonal employee with 30 years of service who died in harness qualifies as a government servant under Section 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules. The impugned rejection order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed with a direction to the Conservator of Forest to look into the matter and consider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds within three weeks.

Deepak Kala Vs State Of Uttarakhand and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2022 of 2016

¶3

Deepak Kala … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents

¶4

Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder, present for the State of Uttarakhand

¶5

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶6

The father of the petitioner, who was a Seasonal Employee in the Forest Department, passed away in the year 2015, while in harness. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that since his father died while in harness, he is liable to be given an appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 ( from hereinafter referred to as “Dying in harness Rules” ).

¶7

All the same, his application has been rejected by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun vide order dated 19.02.2016. The impugned order dated 19.02.2016 is a telegraphic order as all it says that there is no Government order for the employment to the dependents of a Seasonal employee, who died in harness. This Court granted time to the State for filing counter, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet.

¶8

Considering the nature of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, in view of this Court the reasoning given in the impugned order is flawed inasmuch as under the Dying in Harness Rules, a “Government Servant” is defined under Section 2(a), which reads as follows:

¶9

“ 2. Definitions: In these rules, unless the context other wise requires:-

¶10

(a) “Government servant” means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who-

¶11

(i) was permanent in such employment; or

¶12

¶13

(ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or

¶14

(iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.”

¶15

From the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, the case of the petitioner here would be covered under Section 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules since the father of the petitioner was in employment under the Forest Department for the last thirty years as a Seasonal employee under the special status. Under the law, a Seasonal employee, after putting his service for a particular period, is liable to be considered for regularization. In fact this Court has been informed that the petitioner’s father was liable to be regularized, but for his unfortunate death on 19.11.2015 he could not be regularized.

¶16

Under the aforesaid circumstance, the order dated 19.05.2016 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands disposed with direction to the Conservator of Forest, Dehardun, which is the next higher authority, to look into the matter and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law.

¶17

Let a decision be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

¶19

22.11.2016

¶20

Aswal

Deepak Kala v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kala v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Kumar Tyagi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Archana Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Preety Rani Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Madan Lal Thakur Vs Union Of India and Others

Omkar Dutt Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Bhupendra Belwal Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others