Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dying in harness rules in Ashish Yadav vs Managing Director, U.P. State Road ... on 15 January, 2025Matching Fragments
1. Counter affidavit filed by Shri S.M.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and the rejoinder affidavit filed by Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner are taken in the record.
2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to regular appointment and salary from the date of his appointment as a contractual employee on 25.08.2014.
3. Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Shri Vagish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on 25.08.2014 as a contractual employee. In fact his appointment was made under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974"). Hence he is entitled to regular appointment and salary from the aforesaid date of his appointment.
6. The admitted facts of the case are these. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 10.02.2006. The petitioner turned 18 in the year 2013. He filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 05.07.2013. The appointments on compassionate ground in the respondent-corporation are made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as made applicable to the respondent-corporation. Admittedly, the said application was filed more than five years after the death of the father. The aforesaid delay of more than five years has not been condoned by the competent authority in the instant case as contemplated in the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee in the respondent-corporation on 25.08.2014.
26. The need for strict compliance of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and consequences of delay in filing applications for appointment under Dying-in-harness Rules and allied issues were posed to a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P.10 For ease of reference, the relevant parts of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"29. We now proceed to formulate the principles which must govern compassionate appointment in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules:
29. The mandatory prerequisite of condonation of delay in making the application for compassionate appointment by the competent authority under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 has thus been violated. The appointment of the petitioner as a contractual worker was not made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Consequently the petitioner cannot be treated as a regularly appointed employee and is not entitled to benefits claimed by him. Further, the petitioner cannot set up a claim for appointment on compassionate ground at this belated stage under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.