Ram Achal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on suitable post according to his qualification on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Petitioner''s father was appointed as Beldar on daily wage basis on 01.11.1984. He was being paid minimum pay scale. He died on 09.10.2008, and thereafter, petitioner moved application for compassionate appointment. As the claim of petitioner has not been considered, he has approached this Court.

In the counter affidavit which has been so filed through the learned standing counsel, therein clear cut mention has been made that since the father of the petitioner throughout his service remained daily wager and his services were not regularized till his death, as such petitioner''s claim of compassionate appointment cannot be considered, and in view of this no relief can be accorded to the petitioner.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Dharmendra Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in all eventuality was liable to be considered, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that since till his death, services of petitioner''s father had never been regularized and his status continued to be that of daily wager, and merely because he was being paid salary in minimum pay scale, claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation, which emerges in the present case and to which there is no dispute, is that the nature of appointment of petitioner''s father was that of daily wager and he had been accorded minimum pay scale, but his services at no point of time were regularized, rather his status till his death continued to be that of a daily wager. In this view of the matter, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of General Manager Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and others 2009(7) SCC, decided on 15.5.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 3605 of 2009, wherein Hon''ble Apex Court has taken view that qua work charge employee, compassionate appointment cannot be accorded, no relief can be accorded to the petitioner.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.