Vijay Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Revenue ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6941 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 663 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Vijay Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Revenue Department Lucknow And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The special appeal has been filed with a reported delay of two years, five months and seventeen days. The objection to the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the respondents.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support of objection.

The grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay are sufficient to condone the delay, as such, we feel it appropriate to condone the delay.

Accordingly, application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No.14267 of 2018) is allowed.

Delay in filing special appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on Memo of Appeal:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents on the special appeal.

This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the impugned final order dated 10.05.2016, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10079 (SS) of 2016; Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the learned Single Judge relying on judgment of Full Bench of this court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2011 (1) AWC 1028 has dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner.

It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the father of the appellant-petitioner was a seasonal collection amin. He had worked intermittently since 1982, but could not be regularized/regularly appointed, ultimately he died on 2.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the father of appellant-petitioner had worked against a substantive post since 1989 till he died in harness on 2.12.2013 and, as such, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, particularly Rule 2 (a) (iii). It is also submitted that the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is not applicable to the case of appellant-petitioner.

First of all, it is to be observed that the services of collection amins are governed under Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974. A complete procedure has been provided for giving regular appointment to the seasonal collection amin and all such seasonal collection amins who fulfill the criteria as provided under the Rules are considered for regular appointment on the post of regular collection amin. The seasonal collection amins are engaged for a certain period (season) against the requirement of work. The seasonal collection amins unless and until given regular appointment on the post of collection amins are not to be treated working against any substantive post hence not a government servant.

It is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that the deceased employee was given a regular appointment on the post of collection amin. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted that the father of appellant-petitioner had worked against a substantive post as he was given the pay scale for the said post of collection amin and his service book was also prepared.

The grant of certain pay scale to a seasonal collection amin does not mean that he was given substantive appointment on the post of collection amin.

So far as the service book is concerned, that is prepared for the purpose of considering the seasonal collection amin for regular appointment on the post of collection amin. It is not the case that the seasonal collection amin automatically get regularized against substantive vacancies on the post of collection amin. In view of the procedure prescribed under the relevant service rules regular appointment is given to seasonal collection amin after due selection, as such, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the seasonal collection amin cannot be treated to be working against a substantive post.

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the judgment of Full Bench of this court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is not applicable to the case of the appellant is concerned, suffice is to note that the Full Bench of this Court has categorically held in para 26 of the judgment that the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 are not applicable to the dependents of daily wager or work charge employee, they shall be applicable only to the 'government servant' as defined under Rule 2 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. The relevant paragraph of above-said judgment is reproduced below:

"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."

The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 defines the 'Government Servant' for the purpose of appointment of dependents of a deceased government employee. Rule 2 (a) in this regard is reproduced below:

"2. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "Government servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who-

(i) was permanent in such employment; or

(ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or

(iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.

Explanation. - "Regularly appointed" means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the case may be;"

Since we have come to the conclusion that the father of the appellant-petitioner was not a regular employee and he could not have worked against a substantive post of collection amin, as such, we are of the considered view that he was not covered under the definition of 'government servant' as provided under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974.

In view of above, we are of the considered view that the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has no force. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned final order dated 10.05.2016, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10079 (SS) of 2016; Vijay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others

The special appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed.

.

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.]

Order Date :- 2.7.2021

Ram.