Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6743 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikha Singh,Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners, by the instant petition, are assailing the order dated 4 July 2018 passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Construction Division/P.M.G.S.Y. P.W.D. Firozabad, rejecting the representation of the petitioners for compassionate appointment pursuant to a direction passed on 25 May 2018 in Writ-A 9253 of 2018 on the ground that the ex-employees were never appointed on the regular establishment of the department.
It is urged that petitioner no. 1 is the son of ex-employee Rajaram who was appointed as daily wage employee in 1989, thereafter, in 1999 was engaged as a work charge employee and on 1 July 2006 came to be regularized on the regular establishment of the department. Similarly, the second petitioner is the son of ex-employee Sahib Singh who came to be regularized on 26.04.2012.
In the backdrop of the aforementioned admitted facts, it is urged that the term 'Government Servant' under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying-in- Harness) Rules, 1974 (for short 'Rules, 1974') is defined as under:
"2. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Government servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who-
(i) was permanent in such employment; or
(ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or
(iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment."
It is evident from sub-rule (iii) that an employee who has not been irregularly appointed and has worked for three years, the dependants of such employee are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
It is not in dispute that the ex-employee came to be regularized and died-in-harness. In the circumstances, the impugned order becomes unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4 July 2018 passed by the fourth respondent, Executive Engineer, Construction Division/P.M.G.S.Y. P.W.D. Firozabad, is set aside and quashed. The fourth respondent shall pass fresh order on merits and not on laches. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the a lot of similarly situated persons have been given appointment by the department without raising any such objection.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 K.K. Maurya