Smt. Lal Mani vs State of U.P. and Others

I.P. Vasishth, J.—The Petitioner is a dependant widow of one Munna Lal Prajapali who died-in-harness on 17.11.1994 while working on the workcharge establishment under the Respondents she seeks employment on compassionate ground in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in-Harness Rules, 1974.

It was averred that the Petitioner''s deceased husband Munna Lal after having put in more than ten years satisfactory service as a daily rated helper under the Respondents was taken on the rolls of workcharge establishment in regular pay scale with effect from 1.8.1989 against a substantive vacancy. He died-in-harness on 17.11.1994 during his posting in the office of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D., Lucknow leaving behind two minor unmarried daughters, a minor son and a married daughter besides the Petitioner widow. The family had no source of sustenance and the Petitioner was feeling great difficulties in coping with the hard life and bringing up the minor children including two unmarried daughters. She, therefore, approached the Respondents for appointment in class IVth service on the ground of compassion as permissible under the rules. It was contended that even though some vacancies were available, yet the Respondents did not exceed to her request and as such she had no alternative except to seek the intervention of the writ court for the appropriate directions by way of a mandamus to the Respondents for her appointment on some class IVth assignment.

The Respondents resisted the petition primarily on the ground that the deceased Munna Lal was only a workcharge non-regular employee and as such could not be treated as a regular Government servant whose dependants could be accorded the benefit of the rules for compassionatary employment. There was no categorical denial of his having put in ten years service as a daily rated helper in the class IVth. On the other hand, in para 4 of the counter, it was admitted that initially he was engaged in Construction Division I on daily wages, brought on muster roll and afterwards appointed in workcharge establishment with effect from 1.8.1989, but it was categorically denied that he was appointed against a substantive vacancy or allowed to draw the total amount of salary as permissible to regular employees. It was thus contended that since the Petitioner was not covered under the rules, therefore, she had no Justifiable right for compassionatary employment. Of course, at one stage, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, she was considered for appointment on the regular post but not found suitable.

The Petitioner''s relationship with the deceased is not denied. Similarly it stands uncontroverted that she has two small dependant--minor daughters and a minor son with no source of sustenance and her husband died-in-harness while working on the work-charge establishment under the Respondents at least since 1.8.1989; prior to that he had put in almost ten years of service as a daily rated helper.

The only point for consideration before this Court, therefore, is as to whether the Petitioner could claim the benefit of the rules despite being outside the purview of her husband''s regular Government employment. The learned standing counsel relied on Government Circular dated 11.8.1993 contained In Annexure C.A. 3 which clarified that the expenses of the work-charge establishment were not to be put under the head of salaries of the regular employees because they were not to be treated as regular Government employees, and were thus not entitled for the benefit of the rules with regard to employment of their dependants in case of dying-in-harness. It was in the light of said circular that the Petitioner''s representation for consideration of employment on the regular establishment in pursuance to an interim order of this court was declined by the department vide order dated 16.11.1995 contained in Annexure C.A. 4. Taken to the logical end, the submission of the learned counsel would show that the Government circular for categorising the expenses of the workcharge employees as a fiscal arrangement and the department''s decision on Petitioner''s representation for employment his infallible. The court is not impressed with the endeavour because the issue of applicability of the rules has to be taken in the totality of the material rather than isolated or casual interpretation thereof by the department or some interim arrangement for placing the expenses of the establishment under a particular head.

Along with their rejoinder, the Petitioner filed a Government Circular dated 18.6.1987 contained in Annexure 2. A bare perusal thereof would show that in the event of death of any employee, even if he belongs to the work-charge establishment, his ''dependants'' were to be given employment on the ground of compassion obviously under the rules relating to the dying-in-harness. This circular was modified at a later stage and thus in the year 1996 vide circular dated 15.3.1996 contained in Annexure S.C.A. 2, it was stipulated that in the case of death of an employee of work-charge establishment who had put in continuous service of ten years, the benefit of the rules could be accorded to his dependant wife/husband, son/unmarried daughters or widowed daughters in accordance with their educational qualifications. In a manner of speaking, under this arrangement the work-charge establishment employees were given the same treatment as accorded to the Government employees dying-in-harness under the rules with regard to the compassionatary employment to their dependants, of course, with the difference that whereas a regular employee becomes eligible for passing on such benefit to his dependants on putting in three years service, the employees belonging to the work-charge category could become eligible only after putting in ten years continuous service.

But the matter did not rest with the issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 15.3.1996. A new letter came to be released on 27.6.1996 contained in S. A. 1. Clause C (3) thereof accorded the benefit even to those employees who had worked on daily wages/muster roll for a period of ten years, and as mentioned hereinbefore, the Petitioner''s employment as a daily rated helper for ten years prior to his induction into work-charge establishment with effect from 1.4.1989 and continuous working there till his death on 7.11.1984 is not in dispute. In a manner of speaking, he had worked under the Respondents for a continuous period of more than fifteen years prior to his death either as a daily rated helper or "work establishment" helper.

With reference to the case of State of Manipur Vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, , learned standing counsel argued that or an assignment under such rules which have the tendency to give public employment to somebody on out of turn basis a strict interpretation has to be placed and in no case, they can be implemented with retrospective effect. There is no dispute with the ratio of the case, but the distinguishing feature in the case would be evident from the history of various arrangements being made by the Respondents themselves since 1987 to liberalise the rules for granting employment to the dependants of poor class IVth employees dying-in-harness and leaving the family almost on the road without any source of sustenance. The concept and philosophy behind such arrangement is not too far to seek as it originates from the domain of social justice.

Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the Petitioner''s cause deserves to be sustained. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued in her favour calling upon the Respondents to provide her with an appropriate employment in class IVth category keeping in view her qualifications. It may be on the work-charge establishment. In case no vacancy is available, she would be accorded employment on the first next available vacancy.

There would, however, be no order as to costs.