SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Heeraman Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 39076 of 2015
Decided On : 23-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Sanjeev Singh, Sujeet Kumar Rai
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that compassionate appointments must consider the deceased employee's status, allowing for appointment to any suitable group 'D' post under the dying in harness rules.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and other Staff Service Rules, 2002 - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment rejected on grounds of post abolition - Court found that the petitioner's father was a confirmed government employee and the dying in harness rules apply, allowing for appointment on any group 'D' post. (Paras 2, 14, 17)

(B) The court emphasized that the interpretation of 'suitable post' must consider the status of the deceased employee, not merely the qualifications of the applicant. (Paras 15.2, 15.3)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father, who was a confirmed employee, but was denied due to the claim that the post was abolished. The petitioner argued that the dying in harness rules should apply.

Findings of Court:

The court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was not sustainable and quashed the impugned order.

Issues: The main issues included the applicability of the dying in harness rules and the interpretation of 'suitable post' for compassionate appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dying in harness rules apply, and the petitioner could be appointed to any group 'D' post, emphasizing the need to consider the deceased's status.

Result: The order rejecting the petitioner's claim was quashed, and the respondents were directed to issue an appointment order within 30 days.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents under the order impugned dated 23rd February, 2015, whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that petitioner's father was working as an Aid (Sahyogi) to the Collection Amin and the relevant service rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Collection Fund and the Amins and other Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2002’) very categorically provided that the post of Sahyogi of Amin that were 90 in number stand abolished with the retirement of such Sahyogi of Amin or otherwise. Since father of the petitioner died on 12th May, 2012, according to the respondents, the post also got abolished and as it had become a dying cadre.

3. Assailing the order impugned Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, has drawn the attention of the Court to the appointment order of the petitioner's father issued to him on 23rd November, 2002, which categorically records that petitioner’s father is appointed as Sahyogi in the regular pay scale as admissible in law to the post in question w.e.f. 30th October, 2002 as a government employee. He further submits that petitioner's father was in the respondent's establishment ever since 1984 when he was initially appointed though he was working only on a temporary basis but with the confirmation in service giving him a permanent post in the employment of Government service, he became a regular Government employee in the year 2002.

4. In such above circumstances, Sri Sanjeev Singh has argued that Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as were applicable on the date of death of the father of the petitioner will certainly be applicable and even if posts were not there since petitioner had moved an application on 14th June, 2013 seeking appointment as a Class IV employee, petitioner could have been adjusted against any group ‘D’ post. Still further he submits that if vacancies are not there as per the relevant dying in harness rules, 1974 a supernumerary post could have been created.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushlendra Kuwar v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.-44810 of 2011 decided on 5th April, 2007, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the misc. application dated 12th December, 2023.

6. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein. In support of his argument, he has relied upon paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that petitioner’s father was not appointed against any government post as per the amended Rules, 2002. It has also been submitted that merely because the pay fixation was done and an employee would not become a government employee as the payment of salary was made from fund of the district bank. He has also sought to dispute the appointment order issued to the petitioner’s father stating therein that he was being offered appointment on a post which belonged to the government service.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the petitioner's father though was appointed in the year 1984 in a temporary capacity but was later on came to be offered confirmed appointment on the post of Sahyogi to the Collection Amin on 23rd November, 2002 along with two other

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top