State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok ... vs Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006
2023 Latest Caselaw 3027 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 581 of 2006
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag And 4 Ors.
 
Respondent :- Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006 
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Standing Counsel
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Mayankar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Heard Shri Amitabh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State/appellants and perused the material brought on record. However, none appears on behalf of respondent to press this appeal.

2. 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 12.01.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.307 (S/S) of 2006: Sabiha Parveen vs. State of U.P. and others.

3. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the respondent/petitioner pleading that her husband has died on 22.04.2003 while working in work charge establishment as a daily wager. 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 her husband 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.

4. While assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge, learned Additional Chief 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."

5. 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.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant special appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.307 (S/S) of 2006, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. Subject to the condition that order under challenge has not complied with already.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 30.1.2023

Shubhankar