Delhi High Court
Managing Director K.M.V.N. & ... vs Manoj Singh Rautela on 30 April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 226 of 2010
Managing Director, Kumaon Mandal
Vikas Nigam and another ........... Appellants
Versus
Manoj Singh Rautela ........... Respondent
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 defines, amongst others,
"Government Servant". It has been provided in Rule 2(a) (iii) of
the said Rules that "Government Servant" means a Government
Servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh
who though not regularly appointed, had put in three years'
continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.
Taking into account such definition, several Division Benches of
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that daily wage employee,
who had three years continuous engagement against a regular
vacancy, is also a Government Servant. One of those judgments
was rendered in the case of Ravi Karan Singh versus State of U.P.
and others, reported in (1999) 3 UPLBEC, 2263 and similar other
judgments were also rendered. Exactly opposite view was taken
by some other Division Benches of the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court. They held that daily wager can not be treated as
Government Servant even under the aforementioned definition.
Ultimately, the matter reached before the Full Bench of the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar
Yadav versus State of U.P. and others, reported in (2010) 4
UPLBEC, 2633. The Full Bench held that daily wage employees
do not hold any post and, accordingly, they do not come within
the meaning of Government Servants under Rule 2(a)(iii) of the
said Rules. The matter stands crystallized.
2. In the instant case, the father of the respondent/writ
petitioner was a daily wage employee. The father of the
respondent/writ petitioner died before reaching the ordinary age of
superannuation prescribed for the Government servants.
Respondent /writ petitioner contended that since his father being
such a daily wage employee, was a Government servant covered
by Rule 2(a)(iii) of the said Rules, he is entitled to a
compassionate appointment. In the counter affidavit, it was
contended that a daily wage employee is not a Government
servant and after death of the father of the respondent/writ
petitioner compassion was shown to the respondent/writ petitioner
by giving him a daily wage employment. A learned Judge, who
dealt with the writ petition, felt that the father of the
respondent/writ petitioner was covered by Rule 2(a)(iii) of the said
Rules and, accordingly, compassion was required to be shown in
accordance with the said Rule by giving the respondent/writ
petitioner a permanent employment and showing of compassion
by granting him a daily wage employment is not in consonance
with the said Rules. Hence this appeal.
3. We think that when the learned Judge dealt with the
writ petition and passed the judgment and order under appeal,
there was a confusion as to who were Government Servants within
the meaning of definition of "Government Servant" given in Rule
2(a)(iii) of the said Rules and the learned Judge did nothing wrong
in following the judgment, rendered in the case of Ravi Karan
Singh, referred to above. However, having regard to the fact that
the law has been explained by a Full Bench to the effect that daily
wage employees are no employees either permanent, or
temporary, inasmuch as, their employment is for a day and,
accordingly, commences in the morning and comes to end in the
evening, there is no scope of such a person to render continuous
service for three years. There is need to correct the judgment
under appeal and since we have not been persuaded to take a
different view then what has been taken by a Full Bench of the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, we allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment under appeal and dismiss the writ petition with a request
to the appellants to continue the daily wage employment which
they have accorded to the respondent/ writ petitioner till such
engagement is required.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.04.2014 30.04.2014
P. Singh
