Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Lok ... vs Gaurav Shukla ( S/S 3105/2006 ) on 20 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 4 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 938 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P. and Others Respondent :- Gaurav Shukla Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- A.M. Tripathi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants. None has appeared on behalf of respondent to press this appeal though the case has been called in revise. Since it is an old matter, hence, we are not inclined to defer this appeal and proceed to decide the same after hearing counsel for appellants.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgement dated 08.01.2007 passed by learned Single Judge allowing petitioner-respondent's Writ Petition No.3105 (S/S) of 2006 and set aside order dated 25.03.2006 impugned in writ petition. Learned Single Judge has directed appellants to consider petitioner for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974").
3. Judgment of learned Single Judge clearly shows that deceased father of petitioner-respondent was an employee in Work Charge Establishment and, therefore, application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that Rules, 1974 are not applicable on Work Charge Employees. Learned Single Judge has, however, not accepted the view of authorities concerned by relying on judgments of this Court passed in Sunil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003(1) UPLBEC 489 and Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (1) UPLBEC.
4. However, we find that this issue has already been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2010 (5) ESC 3025, has formulated following questions and answered in para 26 as under:
"1. Whether a daily wager and work charge employee, employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post whether substantive or temporary is a 'Government Servant' within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974?
2. Whether the judgement in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. Vs. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201, giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of daily wager and work charge employees, have been correctly decided?"
"26. On the aforesaid discussion, and in view of the law laid down in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi (Supra), we answer the questions posed as follows:-
"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.
2. The judgements in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. Vs. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201 giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of daily wage and workcharge employee have not been correctly decided." (Emphasis Added)
5. Judgment passed in Santosh Kumar Mishra (supra) has been overruled and it has been held that it was not correctly decided. Full Bench judgment in Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) squarely covers the issue involved in present case.
6. In view thereof, judgment of learned Single Judge cannot sustain. For the reasons stated in Full Bench judgment in Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) holding that provisions of Rules, 1974 are not applicable to Work Charge Employees, we allow this appeal, impugned judgment dated 08.01.2007 is hereby set aside and consequently Writ Petition No.3105 (S/S) of 2006 is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020 Siddhant Sahu