SPA/65/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1215 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  SPA No. 65 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/appellant.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2021 passed in WPSS No. 2935 of 2018. By the said judgment following direction was issued:-

"23. The impugned order dated 03.05.2018 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.5 is directed to pass a fresh order for appointment of the petitioner under the 1974 rules, considering the father of the petitioner as a regular employee."

State of Uttarakhand has challenged the judgment, on the ground that direction to pass order of appointment could not have been issued by learned Single Judge as it will leave no discretion with the appointing authority to consider claim of the writ petitioner in terms of the statutory provisions.

Learned State Counsel contends that the only direction which could be issued was to consider the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment, under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner (respondent herein) submits that his clients father was engaged as a part time Tubewell Operator, in the year 1988 and his services were regularized on the said post, on 31.05.2012, however entry regarding his joining upon regularization was not made in the service-book consequently, claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on this ground alone.

We have gone through the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter in great detail and recorded a finding that reason assigned for rejecting writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is unsustainable as his father was not only regularized, but he had also joined as Tubewell Operator, after regularization of his services.

We concur with the view taken by learned Single Judge and hold that claim of writ petitioner was wrongly rejected.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, operative portion of the impugned judgment is modified and it is provided that Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar shall reconsider petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, under relevant Rules, treating status of his father to be that of a regular employee and pass appropriate order within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

The special appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.04.2022 Shubham