Suresh Chandra Auli vs Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam and Another

Rajesh Tandon, J.—By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27th July, 1999 and order dated 7.2.1998 as mentioned in order dated 27th July, 1999. Further has prayed for a mandamus directing the opposite parties to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the provision of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

Briefly stated, the father of the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, on 10.12.1982 on the post, of daily sealer (passing munshi) Depot No. 2 U. P. Van Nigam Cheed Depot, Kanakpur, district Pithoragarh.

According to the petitioner his father died on 4th March 1996. Father of the petitioner worked more than 13 years. He was only the bread-earner in the family and after his death the whole family of the petitioner has come on the verge of starvation. The applicant filed application for appointment under the provision of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, but the same was rejected in the year, 1999 stating therein that there is no provision for appointment under the dying-in-harness rules to the dependents of the daily wagers.

In Writ Petition No. 91 (S/S) of 2003, Bhaguli Devi v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., similar controversy arose, where the employee concerned has worked on daily-wage for about 16 years and this Court has held as under :

"For the reasons recorded above, since the petitioners'' husband was continuing in employment for more than 16 years, petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Rule, 1974, which has been adopted by the State of Uttaranchal.

In view of the above discussion, I direct the respondents authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for providing her appointment under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Rules, 1974 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

In Anju Misra v. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur 2003 (6) AWC 5189 after relying upon the judgment in Santosh Kumar Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors. 2002 (1) UPLBEC 237 it has been held as under :

"9. According to the submission of the learned Counsel for the State, a daily wager or work charge employee who is engaged by the State Government or any department of the State Government cannot be treated as a Government servant within the definition of Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules. Qualifying the above argument, the learned Counsel for the State further submitted that though an employee who is not regularly appointed is covered by the definition in view of Sub-clause (iii) of Rule 2 (a) but in that case such employee must have put in three years continuous service, that too in regular vacancy in such employment. Since, the petitioner''s father was earlier a daily wager or muster roll employee and later on worked as work charge employee, therefore, it cannot be said that he was appointed regularly or had worked in regular vacancy."

"14. The practice of appointing daily wagers or work charge employees is very much prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh and instances are no less in number where the daily wager or work charge employees in the Government Department have been allowed to continue for years together, namely, 15 years, 20 years and 25 years or till they actually reach the age of superannuation to which they may not be entitled, not being a Government servant but, they are disposed with their engagement or attaining the age of superannuation. The practice of appointing such daily wagers and work charge employees has constantly been a matter of great concern for the judiciary and for that matter, the Apex Court has many a times issued directions for framing schemes so as to accommodate all daily wagers of long standing duration and work-charge employees as a regular employee. It would be needless to mention that such a scheme has been ordered to be framed by the Court in the department of Rural Engineering Services in the Forest Department and many other department"

In Meena Devi Chaudhary v. Chief Engineer, U. P. Public Works Department, Lucknow (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1421 the said controversy has also been decided with the following observations :

"A woman cannot be denied appointment under this Rule on the alleged ground that her deceased husband was not working on regular basis in view of Meena Devi Chaudhary v. Chief Engineer, U. P. Public Works Department, Lucknow (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1421 at 1422 (All)"

Further in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors., 1991 (18) ALR 509 and Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , so far as the appointment on compassionate ground should not be delayed as after the death of bread-earner, the whole family is starving.

Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Manipur Vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, , further in Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. State of U. P. and others, the benefit has also been extended to the temporary employees.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 within a period of three months from the filing of the certified copy of the order.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.