Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J., Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
State of Uttarakhand and others - Appellant
Versus
Vishal Singh - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 125 OF 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
A recommendation for regularisation prior to an employee's death establishes a legitimate expectation for compassionate appointment for the employee's family under applicable rules.
Headnote:
REGULARISATION - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - The court upheld the right of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, emphasizing that the recommendation for regularisation of the petitioner's father was made prior to his death, thus establishing a legitimate expectation for the petitioner despite the father's passing before the final order of regularisation was issued.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who had been a part-time Tube Well Operator since 1994. The father had a pending case for regularisation, which was recommended shortly before his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recommendation for regularisation was made before the father's death, and thus the petitioner should not be penalized for the timing of the final order. The court noted that the father had served for 25 years and had fulfilled the necessary conditions for regularisation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules despite the father's death occurring before the final regularisation order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a recommendation for regularisation creates a legitimate expectation for the family, and the timing of the father's death should not negate the petitioner's right to be considered for compassionate appointment.
Result: The Special Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition and direct reconsideration of the case under the Dying in Harness Rules.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
The State has come up in this Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2020. As per the said judgment, the respondentwrit petitioner had approached this Court, taking a plea that his father was appointed as a Tube Well Operator (part time) on 18.08.1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 550/-, by the order of the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Block, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Earlier also, the father of the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1358 of 2019, claiming the benefit of regularisation, and that Writ Petition was disposed of on 14.06.2019, with a direction to the respondents therein to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner’s father. The case of the father of the petitioner was recommended for regularisation on 12.09.2019. The father of the petitioner passed away, after passing of the order for considering his case for regularisation, on 16.10.2019, and the final order of regularisation was passed on 31.10.2019.
3. The learned Single Judge has, rightly, allowed the Writ Petition by observing that the case for regularisation of petitioner’s father had been recommended on 12.09.2019, and the father of the petitioner died on 16.10.2019. Therefore, no fault can be attached to the petitioner, and the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that, on the date of regularisation, his father had expired, since the recommendation for regularisation had already been made on 12.09.2019. The Writ Petition has been rightly allowed, giving directions to the appellants herein to reconsider the case of the respondent herein under the Dying in Harness Rules.
4. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any Regularisation Policy, or any condition, which the petitioner’s father did not fulfil for the purpose of regularisation, and the appellants have also not been able to dispute that his case had been recommended for regularisation on 12.09.2019. The petitioner’s father had been working since 18.08.1994 and till 12.09.2019, he had rendered 25 years of service with the department, and hence his child (respondent herein) has a right to be considered for appointment under the Dying in Harness Policy.
5. The Special Appeal is meritless, and is, hereby, dismissed.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
