Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/829/2017 on 5 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 829 OF 2017
05TH JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
State of Uttarakhand & another .....Appellants.
And
Smt. Munni Upreti ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Vikas Pande, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned
counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No.13264 of 2017)
Learned counsel for the respondent does not fairly
oppose the application seeking condonation of 141 days delay
in preferring the present special appeal. The application is,
accordingly, allowed and the delay is condoned.
SPA No. 829 of 2017
2. The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 24.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (S/S) No.246 of 2009.
3. The impugned order is short and reads as follows:-
"Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pande, Brief Holder for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered
by this Court in WPSB No.882 of 2002 on 08.12.2003.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
the judgment cited hereinabove. Impugned Annexure
No.10 dated 05.05.2006 is quashed and set-aside.
Respondents are directed to consider offering
appointment to the petitioner under dying-in-harness
rules in view of the judgment cited hereinabove, within a
period of ten weeks from today."
4. The submission of Mr. Pande, learned counsel for
the appellants is that the case of the respondent, firstly, was
not covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
(S/B) No.882 of 2002, dated 08.12.2003, inasmuch, as the
husband of the respondent Late Yogesh Prasad Upreti was a
Seasonal Collection Amin, and was not in regular employment
of the State. Her case could not be equated with the case of
Smt. Manisha Chand (petitioner in WPSB No.882 of 2002) for
the reason that, in that case the Court noted that the
petitioner's husband, who had been appointed in the year
1988, had become eligible to be regularized as a regular
Collection Amin in the year 1992 in view of Rule 5 of the U.P.
Collection Amin Service Rules, and the High Court had passed
an order allowing the husband of the petitioner to work
regularly. However, in the present case, the husband of the
respondent was never regularized, or directed to be
regularized.
5. We find merit in this submission of Mr. Pande. That
apart, even otherwise, in our view, the petition preferred by
the respondent- widow could not have been allowed, for the
reason that her husband had died in-harness while serving as
a Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1995. The application
moved by the respondent for compassionate appointment had
been rejected on 20.08.1997. The petition had been preferred
only in the year 2009 against the further rejection in the year
2006.
6. Compassionate appointments are granted to
provide immediate succor to the bereaved family, who has
lost the earning member of the family, who is in government
service. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is
not the source of recruitment. No right of succession, in
respect of the employment of the father/ husband, vests
either in the children, or in the widow.
7. Since the demise of the respondent- husband had
taken place in 1995, the writ petition preferred in the year
2009 was highly belated, and could not have been
entertained on that short ground.
8. We, accordingly, allow the present appeal, and set-
aside the impugned order.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 05th July, 2023
NISHANT
