Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mamta Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20961 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Educatio & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Shukla,Manish Misra,Sunit Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4.
The petitioners are seeking a direction to the opposite parties to consider the petitioners as regularly appointed and to provide them the regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointment considering the nature of appointment as permanent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed from the years 2001 till 2008 on compassionate grounds under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974(hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Rules). However, the initial appointment order indicates that they had been appointed on a fixed salary of Rs.2550/- only along with other admissible emoluments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to the appointment letters, pertaining to the petitioners, clearly indicating the fact that they had been appointed on compassionate ground under the dying in harness quota. However, the said appointment letters also indicate the fact that the petitioners would be paid only a fixed salary of Rs.2550/- per month along with admissible emoluments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported in 1999 (17) LCD 641 clearly holding the appointments under the 1974 Rules on compassionate basis as permanent appointment. The same view has been followed in a catena of subsequent judgment also.
It is, thus, undisputed that persons appointed on compassionate basis under the 1974 Rules clearly enjoy the permanent status from the date of initial appointment and, thus, are admissible to the service benefits of a regular/permanent employee. As such the payment of fixed salary to the petitioners is clearly not in accordance with the service rules and the settled law on the point.
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 submits that the petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that it has been filed with considerable delay since the petitioners were initially appointed in the years ranging from 2001-08 and has been performing their duties on the post of 'Anuchar' since then without raising any grievance with regard to their service benefits. The said submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties is liable to be rejected on account of the settled position of law enunciated in the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.R.Gupta v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 as well as the Judgment of this Court rendered in Special Appeal Defective No.236 of 2016 (Chandrama Singh Yadav v. Union of India and 3 others) that payment of salary is a recurring cause of action of an employee and as such the cause of action would accrue to such a government servant on the first day of every month.
In view of the uncontroverted situation with regard to the status of the petitioners, the present petition is being decided at the admission stage itself with a direction to the opposite parties to treat the petitioners as substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment on the Class IV post of 'Anuchar' and to pay the service benefit as admissible on a Class IV post to such substantively appointed employees.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
kvg/-
