Smt. Chandrakali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Public ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15566 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34236
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3610 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Chandrakali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Public Works Deptt., Lko., And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 29.04.2023, whereby the petitioner has been offered appointment as Daily Wager under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") in compliance of the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7375(SS) of 2011.

3. Only ground for not offering appointment to the petitioner as Daily Wager is against the said judgment and order dated 05.10.2021, an Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2022 is pending before this Court.

4. Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal position that under the Rules, 1974 appointment has to be made on regular basis, and the appointment cannot be made as a Daily Wager. He further submits that since Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.7375(SS) of 2021 is pending, the petitioner has been offered appointment as Daily Wager.

5. I do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the State. Appointment has to be offered on regular basis, which may be subject to final outcome of the Special Appeal Defective No.74 of 2022.

6. Sri Pradeep Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Department should offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on regular basis and that appointment should be subject to final outcome of the Special Appeal.

7. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to offer appointment to the petitioner on regular basis. However, said appointment should be subject to final outcome of the special appeal as contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 17.5.2023

prateek