Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Rajan - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 790 of 2020
Decided On : 13-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Sikandar Khan,Sudhanshu Pratap Singh
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,Jagannath Maurya,Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha
Dependants of a muster roll employee are ineligible for compassionate appointment as such employees are not classified as 'government servants' under the recruitment rules applicable to the dependants of deceased government employees.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(a) - Compassionate appointment - Eligibility of dependants of a muster roll employee - Whether a muster roll employee constitutes a 'government servant' - Daily wager and workcharge employees not holding substantive or temporary posts are not government servants - Law laid down by Full Bench applies to muster roll employees. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father, who was employed as a muster roll employee. The respondent-employer contended that the deceased did not hold the status of a government servant, thereby rendering the petitioner ineligible for compassionate appointment under the relevant rules.
Findings of Court:
The court held that muster roll employees, being in the same category as daily wagers and workcharge employees, do not qualify as 'government servants' under the statutory rules governing the recruitment of dependants of deceased government employees. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. The court, however, directed the respondent to process any outstanding financial dues of the deceased employee in a time-bound manner.
Issues: Whether the dependant of an employee engaged as a muster roll employee is entitled to seek compassionate appointment under the rules framed for the benefit of dependants of deceased government servants.
Ratio Decidendi: An employee engaged on a muster roll basis who does not hold a substantive or temporary post is not a 'government servant' within the meaning of the rules. Therefore, the dependants of such employees are legally ineligible to receive compassionate appointment upon the death in harness of the said employee.
Result: Petition disposed of; prayer for compassionate appointment rejected; directions given for the processing of pending dues.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual employment status of the deceased employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicability of dying in harness rules to muster roll employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. final disposal of claims and entitlement to terminal dues. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent No. 1 and Shri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the respondent-corporation. The father of the petitioner was engaged as a muster roll employee in the respondent-corporation who died in harness.
3. The status of the petitioner's father as a muster roll employee was also noticed by this Court in Writ C No. 21057 of 2010 ( U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited and another vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karmchari Sangh and another ) and the companion writ petition. The father of the petitioner was a party to the aforesaid writ petitions.
4. The specific pleadings in regard to the status of the petitioner's father as a muster roll employee made by the respondents have not been traversed in the rejoinder affidavit or from the records.
5. In this wake, the Court comes to a conclusion that the father of the who died on 06.06.2016 was a muster roll employee.
6. The entitlements of the dependants of muster roll employees to appointment on compassionate grounds arose for consideration before the learned Full Bench in Pavan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported at (2010) 8 ADJ 664 (ALL). The learned Full Bench has held as under:-
"1. A daily wager and workcharge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules. "
7. A muster roll employee in the likeness of daily wager and workcharge employee is not a government servant "within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974
8. The law laid down by the learned Full Bench in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra) shall also be applicable to muster roll employees. The petitioner being the son of a muster roll employee is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent-corporation.
9. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is declined.
10. After the order was dictated, Shri Sudhanshu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the dues and entitlements of the petitioner's late father have not been disbursed. The same may be released to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee.
11. Shri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent- corporation fairly submits that any such claim of the petitioner is liable to be processed by the respondents in a reasonable period of time.
12. In this wake, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
i) The petitioner shall submit an application for various dues to which he and other legal heirs claims entitlements to the respondent No. 3.
ii) The respondent No. 3 shall decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation.
