State of U.P.And Others vs Panmati Devi And Another

Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.

This is a Speeial Appeal filed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 passed in CMI Misc. Writ Petition No. 18449 of 2005; PanmatiDevi& anotherv. State of U.P. andothers, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, the order dated 11 th February, 2005 has been guashed, and the respondentsappellants has been directed to considerthe claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of the deceased employee.

The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the issue raised on behalf of the appellant are that the father of the petitioner was initially engaged as seasonal collection peon on 17th February, 1976. There after he worked as seasonal collection peon for differentperiods.

From the service book of the father of the petiti�ner, which has been brought on record as Annexure1 to the writ petition, it is apparent that from 1st June, 1986 the father of the petiti�ner has been cbntinuously working as collection peon. The services of large numberof collection peons including.the father of the petitioner were terminated under order dated 24th March, 2000. Writ Petitions were filed by the large number of collection peons including the father of the petiti�ner, wherein an interim order was granted. As a result where of, he continued in service till his death, on 19th May, 2005, while working as collection peon.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 has contended that si?ce the father of the petiti�ner was working as seasonal collection peon, he did not ho?d any regular post, therefore, dependent of such seasonal collection peons are not entitled for appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness Rules, 1974. he submits that merely because the father of the petiti�ner worked continuously as seasonal collection peon without any break si?ce 1986, itwould not improvehiscaseas he was not working against a regular post.

Learned Counsel for the respondentwrit petiti�ner in reply contends that the working of the father of the petiti�ner being continuous for decades, it infact cannot be treated as seasonal. Person working throughout the year continuously " for decades cannot be termed as seasonal appointees. The SubDivisional Magistrale has granted revised payscale to the father of the petiti�ner and has also allowed increments. Therefore, the working of the father of the petiti�ner cannot be said to be seasonal and learned single Judge has not committed any error in issuing directions that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground be considered.

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

The basie submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the father of the petiti�ner was not regularlyappointed, though he had been worked for decades in a regular payscale. From the facts of the present case as brought on record including the service book of the father of the petiti�ner, we,. notice that from 1st January, 1986, the working of the father of the petiti�ner has been continuous throughout the year without any there being a break of even one day. Learned Counsel for the appellant has admitted that sanction for seasonal work is granted on year to year basis. Actual working of the father of the petiti�ner being continuous for decades for whole year without a break of even a single day, clearly indicates that the nature of the working of the father of the petiti�ner cannot be said to be seasonal. The Stateauthorities themselves permitted the father.of the petiti�ner to continue throughout the year for decades. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that working of the father of the petiti�ner was seasonal.

Thus the facts of the case reveal that the working of the father of the petiti�ner has been continuous for 19 years and during this period he was paid salary in the regular payscale. We are satisfied that such working cannot be treated to be seasonal. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned single Judge under the impugned judgment for considering the case of petiti�ner forcompassionate appointment cannot befaulted with. The discretion exer?ised by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case is not interfered with.

We may clarify that we may not be taken as to laying down any proposition that dependents of seasonal employees are entitled for compassionate appointment.

In the facts of the present case, we have taken a view that the working of the father of the petitioner cannot be treated to be seasonal. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India.

This is not a fit case for any interference under the appellate jurisdiction conferred by ChapterVIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court.

The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.