Uttarakhand High Court
Manoj Purohit vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 February, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL
21st February, 2024
Special Appeal No. 07 of 2024
With
Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1 of 2024)
Manoj Purohit ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State of : Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief
Uttarakhand Holder.
Counsel for respondent No.2 & 4 : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel.
Judgment: (per Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
The present Special Appeal is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1911 of 2023, whereby, the Writ
Petition was dismissed.
2. There is a delay of 49 days in preferring the instant
Special Appeal. Delay is not seriously opposed by the learned
counsel for the respondents, and therefore, the Delay Condonation
Application is allowed and delay in filing special appeal is
condoned.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the
appellant/petitioner late Padma Dutt Purhoit, who was employed as
2
a Waiter (class-IV post) in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited
(hereinafter to be referred as "GMVNL") on a substantive basis,
but unfortunately, on 07.04.2018 the petitioner's father died and
thereafter, an application was moved for seeking compassionate
appointment on the basis of the educational qualification. The
petitioner /appellant claims appointment in class-III post since he
is a graduate and having diploma in Computer Application
Software. However, without considering his qualification, the
petitioner /appellant was offered appointment by an order dated
07.03.2019, issued by the Managing Director, GMVNL on the post
of Waiter on compassionate ground and given posting in Tourism
Section at Headquarter. This offer of appointment dated
07.03.2019 was accepted voluntarily by the petitioner /appellant
and after the completion of the probation period, the services of the
petitioner /appellant was confirmed on the pay-scale of Rs.5200-
20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- by an order dated 22.06.2020.
4. The petitioner /appellant after accepting the
appointment and on completion of the probation period, submitted
a representation on 11.01.2021, wherein, he has sought an
amendment in his original appointment and claimed that the same
be treated to be a class-III post instead of a class-IV post. When
no action was taken by the respondents despite several reminders,
the petitioner /appellant preferred a Claim Petition
No. 95/DB/2021 before the State Public Service Tribunal,
Dehradun and the said Claim Petition was disposed of by the
Tribunal on 06.12.2021, whereby, the Managing Director of the
GMVNL was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned
and speaking order.
3
5. Thereafter, in compliance of the judgment rendered by
the Tribunal, the Managing Director of GMVNL by an order dated
18.01.2022 rejected the claim of the appointment of the petitioner
/appellant in class-III post on compassionate ground on the ground
that already offer of appointment of class-IV post was given to the
petitioner /appellant, which he has accepted and joined.
6. Being aggrieved with the rejection of claim of the
petitioner /appellant, the petitioner /appellant preferred Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1911 of 2022, in which, the petitioner /appellant
gives the reference of some other instances in which the
appointment on compassionate ground was given according to
their qualification. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition on 16.10.2023, on ground that since the petitioner
/appellant accepted the appointment offered to him in Group-D
post, he cannot be permitted to raise the contention that since he
has qualification for appointment to Group-C post, therefore, he
should be appointed on Group-C post.
7. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single
Judge also taken into consideration the judgement passed in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, decided on 29.09.2023, wherein,
it was observed that once compassionate appointment was offered
and accepted, it cannot be permitted to be upgraded.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that
against the said judgment dated 29.09.2023, passed in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, an Special Appeal No. 6 of 2024
was also preferred and the same was dismissed by this Court today
itself, i.e., 21st February, 2024 and this is also one of the aspects of
4
the matter that the present Special Appeal is also liable to be
dismissed.
9. No doubt, it is a settled principle of law that giving
appointment to the dependant of the deceased employees, who died
in harness is only a beneficial scheme so that the family of the
deceased employee may not suffer from any financial crisis due to
untimely death of the deceased employee. Since it is a beneficial
scheme and as such no one can claim as a matter of right to get
appointment on compassionate ground. Here in the present case,
the compassionate appointment offered to the petitioner, who
voluntarily accepted the same without any protest and after
accepting, he also completed the probation period and after
completion of probation period, he was given the status of the
confirmed employee.
10. This aspect clearly reveals that with open eyes the
petitioner/appellant accepts the offer of appointment in class-IV
post without any protest and once he voluntarily accepts the said
order, then he subsequent thereto cannot claim the compassionate
appointment on a higher post. Once an offer is given under the
dying-in-harness rules and the same is accepted, then no one can
further claim either for up-gradation of post or to claim to consider
his claim for dying-in-harness rules afresh in a higher post.
11. Therefore, we do not find any substance and merit in
the instant Special Appeal. The learned Single Judge rightly
dismissed the Writ Petition.
5
12. Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal being devoid
of merit is dismissed.
___________________________
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
___________________________
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Dt: 21st February, 2024
Shiv
