JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Through Hybrid Mode)

The petitioner to the present writ petition, on the death of his late father Shyam Lal on 24th July 2013, claiming his appointment under the Rules called as the “Uttarakhand Dying in Harness Rules, 2003", had filed an application for appointment on the said ground, before the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Lal Kuan, District Nainital, claiming that on the date of the death of his late father, who was working with the respondent, as a Class-IV employee, since the petitioner was major and he was holding an intermediate qualification, coupled with the fact that the other dependents of late Shyam Lal had given an N.O.C., in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner may be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, under the said Rules of 2003.

2. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority i.e. the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Lal Kuan, district Nainital and while also considering the implications of Government Order No. 6729 dated 5th November 1992, which was then issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, offer of an appointment was extended to the petitioner, to be appointed on the post of ‘Sweeper', carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 4400–7440, with Grade Pay payable on it of Rs. 1300/-.

3. The petitioner admittedly had voluntarily accepted the said appointment, and had willingly submitted his joining and ever since his appointment on 1st November 2013, he had been working in the said capacity with the respondents. Later on, at a much belated stage, the petitioner has contended; that since he has ultimately graduated himself and was also holding a Diploma in Information Processing, with System and Database Management, coupled with the fact that since he has got the knowledge of English and Hindi typing too, that would be a qualification, which is compatible for consideration of his appointment on Class-III post, and hence he submits in the present writ petition that his appointment may be converted into a Class-III employee than that from the post on which he was originally appointed as Class-IV employee i.e. Sweeper w.e.f. 1st November 2013.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended in the writ petition that on the claim of appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the so-called qualification, which has been mentioned above, in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner had approached respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were the Appointing Authorities of the petitioner and he has contended, that on his claim being raised for being appointment as Class-III employee, based on the qualification he possessed, he was orally assured by the respondents that his claim for conversion to class-III employee would be considered, to be appointed as Class-III employee, apart from the aforesaid assurance; another reason which had been taken as to be the basis, for filing the writ petition for conversion of his appointment from the post of sweeper to a Class-III employee; is because of the fact that the petitioner, has contended that from time to time, as and when there was a work exigency with the Nagar Palika, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had often, being asking the petitioner though intermittently to discharge the duties of the ministerial staff.

5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid fact that he was called upon to discharge the duties of the ministerial staff, which is a Class-III post, the petitioner had quoted some of the examples, when he was asked by the respondents to discharge the duties of a class three employee, for example:

a) It was on 6th April 2016, the petitioner was asked to collect the parking tax. This Court on going through the documents, found, that if the documents thus conferring him the responsible to work for collecting parking taxes on 6th April 2016, is taken into consideration, in fact, it was only a one-day arrangement, which was made, whereby the petitioner was asked to assist