Back
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Uttam Singh – Respondent
Key Points: - The Court held that the respondent's father was treated as a regular employee despite being designated as a Part Time tubewell operator, constituting an appointment against a regular vacancy for purposes of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (!) (!) - The High Court’s finding that the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Rules, due to long service and regularization in practice, was upheld, and the appellants’ challenge to that entitlement was rejected (!) (!) (!) (!) - The record shows inter-departmental transfers and deployment in election work for the respondent’s father, reinforcing designation as a regular employee and supporting equal pay for equal work considerations (!) (!) - The Court noted discrimination against the respondent arising from prior litigation between the Department and the deceased employee’s family, and refused to permit harassment or denial of benefits (!) - Conclusion: Appeal dismissed with costs; necessary orders to be issued within one month (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
1. The appellants seek to assail the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in terms whereof the respondent before us has been granted the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") on account of demise of his father, who was working with the appellants.
2. The father of the respondent had earlier waged a legal battle against the appellant-Department arising out of his endeavour to get his appointment post his selection for the post of Tubewell Operator. The High Court in the impugned order opined that the selection process of the father of the respondent was unambiguous and against the regular vacancy whereby he had submitted all the requisite documents to the Irrigation Department. The case of the respondent is that the appellants held up this issue over six years and the actual appointment took place only on 29.01.2003. The respondent's father continued to work and draw emoluments for a period of 13 years equivalent to the regular pay-scale till he unfortunately passed away on 09.03.2016.
3. The case o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
