Omkar Sharan Bajpai vs The District Judge Barabanki

Hon''ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

Since common question is involved in these three writ petitions, hence are decided by the present common judgment.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground by an order dated 27.1.1999 against Class-III vacancy under Dying-in-Harness Rules. However, in spite of appointing the petitioner as regular incumbent, respondents have appointed the petitioner on adhoc basis.

The law is very well settled by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1999 (17) LCD 641: Ravi Karan Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and others, where it has been held that appointment on compassionate ground shall be deemed to be appointed on regular basis. Such appointee shall be treated as permanent employee. The operative portion of the judgment of Ravi Karan Singh (supra), is reproduced as under:

Hon''ble M. Katju, J. & Hon''ble Kamal Kishore, J.--This petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 19.12.1997. The point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or a temporary appointment. According to the learned Single Judge, this Court had earlier held that an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment vide Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D.I.O.S., 1993 Education and Service Case 21, Gulab Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 995 and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D.I.O.S. and others, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 427. The learned Single Judge who passed the referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed with the above mentioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger Bench.

In our opinion, an appointment under The Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services ) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointment.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

In view of the above, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to pass appropriate order treating the petitioner as regular employee of the Department from the date of initial recruitment i.e., 27.1.1999 with all consequential benefits keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Let necessary exercise be done expeditiously say, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.