Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... vs Sukai on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 454 of 2006
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. And 3 Orss/S 7723/2005
Respondent :- Sukai
Counsel for Appellant :- C.Sc..
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Srivastava
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Shri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State/appellants and perused the material brought on record. However, learned counsel for respondent is not present.
This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the appellants/State of U.P. challenging the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7723 (S/S) of 2005.
The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the respondent/petitioner pleading that his father has died on 02.03.2003 while working As Beldar in work charge establishment of Public Works Department. The respondent/petitioner had sought employment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") but his application was rejected on the ground that his father was working in work charge establishment and as per Government orders dated 26.09.1990 and 01.06.1995, the dependents of work charge employees, who had worked as work charge employee, were not entitled for compassionate appointment. Relying upon the judgments in Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others: (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337 and other similar matters, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the dependents of the deceased work charge were also entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1974.
While assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for State/appellants has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Pawan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others: 2010 (4) UPLBEC 2633: 2011 (1) AWC 1028, wherein the Full Bench held that:-
" 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."
In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge holding that the dependants of the deceased work charge employee are also entitled for compassionate appointment under Rules, 1974, is unsustainable.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant special appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.11.2005 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7723 (S/S) of 2005, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Ram.
