Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE THE HONble M. KATJU, J.
SAROJ DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHTHROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF U.P., LUCKNOW - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 3763 Of 1999
Decided On : 05/21/1999
Dying and Harness Rules - Widow's Appointment - The court held that the widow of a temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy for over 11 years is entitled to appointment under Dying and Harness Rules, distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of a casual or ad hoc appointee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow with four small children, claimed appointment under Dying and Harness Rules after her husband's death in harness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's husband, a temporary appointee who had worked for over 11 years, was entitled to the benefit of the Dying and Harness Rules, and directed the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner.
Issues: Interpretation of Dying and Harness Rules, applicability of Supreme Court decision, entitlement of widow to appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that the benefit of Dying and Harness Rules may be given to dependents where the deceased had worked for at least three years, and held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit due to her husband's 11 years of service.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner within one month of production of a certified copy of the order.
( 2 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel has submitted that no appointment under Dying and Harness Rules can be given to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of haryana Vs. Rani Devi J. T. 1996 (6) page 646. He has invited our attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment in which it has been held that a casual or ad hoc appointee cannot be given benefit of the g. O. dated 31. 10. 1985, I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and in my opinion, it is distinguishable. The petitioners husband was not a purely casual or ad hoc employee. He was a temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy from 18. 4. 1987 and had worked for more that 11 years. The decision of the Supreme Court applied to a case of a casual or ad hoc appointee e. g. a person appointed for a period of one month who died after 20 days of appointment. In case of such a casual appointee obviously the benefit of Dying and Harness Rules cannot be given. Hence the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in this case as the petitioners husband worked for over 11 years.
( 3 ) MORE ever in the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of government Servant, Dying and Harness Rules it has been mentioned in rule 2 (3) that the benefit of the Dying and Harness rules may be given to the dependent where the deceased had worked for at least three years. Since the petitioner" husband worked for over 11 years the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Dying and harness Rules.
( 4 ) IN the circumstances the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner commensurate to her qualifications within one month of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
.
AI
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
