इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट ने एक आदेश में कहा है कि वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी सरकारी सेवक नहीं होता है इसलिए सेवाकाल में उसकी मृत्यु होने पर उसके आश्रित को मृतक आश्रित कोटे के तहत नौकरी पाने का अधिकार नहीं है।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति बी अमित स्थालकर ने मुकेश यादव की याचिका पर उसके वकील एवं स्थाई अधिवक्ता जगदीश सिंह बुंदेला को सुनकर दिया। बुंदेला ने याचिका पर प्रतिवाद करते हुए कहा कि पवन कुमार यादव के मामले में हाई कोर्ट की पूर्ण पीठ ने अपने फैसले में वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी को सरकारी सेवक नहीं माना है। साथ ही कहा कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने लक्ष्मी देवी के मामले में स्पष्ट किया है कि वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी सरकारी सेवक नही होता है और उसकी नियमित नियुक्ति नहीं होती। ऐसे में याचिका ख़ारिज होने योग्य है।
कोर्ट ने इन फैसलों के आधार पर याचिका ख़ारिज करते हुए कहा कि याची के पिता pwd में वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी के रूप में बेलदार पद पर 30 साल कार्यरत रहे जो सरकारी सेवक नहीं है। ऐसे में याची को मृतक आश्रित कोटे में नौकरी पाने का अधिकार नही है। वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारियों के पेंशन के मुद्दे पर निर्णयों में मतभिन्नता के कारण कोर्ट ने यह मुद्दा वृहद् पीठ को संदर्भित कर दिया है।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49655 of 2015
Petitioner :- Mukesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.P. Yadav,Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.S. Bundela, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 is taken on record.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 6.5.2015 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father late Radhey Shyam Yadav was working as a daily wager in 1980 in the Public Words Department, Allahabad as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and thereafter he worked as Beldar and work charge employee on 16.3.1988. He died while working as such.
Thereafter his widow late Smt. Dhanpatti Devi submitted an application on 29.11.2005 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Her application was rejected by the respondents by order dated 7.12.2005.The said order was never challenged and has become final. Thereafter the present petitioner who is stated to be the son of late Radhey Shyam Yadav moved his application on 23.4.2015 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.5.2015.
So far as the grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of a work charge or daily wages employee is concerned the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L & S) 304 in paragraph 24 and 32 has held as under:
"24. Indisputably the services of the deceased had not been regularized. In both the cases the writ petitions were filed but no effective relief thereto had been granted. In the case of late Leeladhar Pandey, allegedly, he was drawing salary on a regular scale of pay.That may be so but the same would not mean that there existed a regular vacancy.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the daily wage employees would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules. they are, in our opinion, not covered in the definition of the "government employee".
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 664 in para 26 has clearly held that a daily wager and work-charge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules. The relevant paragraph 26 of the said judgment reads as under:
"26. On the aforesaid discussion, and in view of the law laid down in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi (Supra), we answer the questions posed as follows:-
2. The judgements in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. Vs. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201 giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of daily wage and workcharge employee have not been correctly decided."
In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2015
o.k.
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति बी अमित स्थालकर ने मुकेश यादव की याचिका पर उसके वकील एवं स्थाई अधिवक्ता जगदीश सिंह बुंदेला को सुनकर दिया। बुंदेला ने याचिका पर प्रतिवाद करते हुए कहा कि पवन कुमार यादव के मामले में हाई कोर्ट की पूर्ण पीठ ने अपने फैसले में वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी को सरकारी सेवक नहीं माना है। साथ ही कहा कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने लक्ष्मी देवी के मामले में स्पष्ट किया है कि वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी सरकारी सेवक नही होता है और उसकी नियमित नियुक्ति नहीं होती। ऐसे में याचिका ख़ारिज होने योग्य है।
कोर्ट ने इन फैसलों के आधार पर याचिका ख़ारिज करते हुए कहा कि याची के पिता pwd में वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारी के रूप में बेलदार पद पर 30 साल कार्यरत रहे जो सरकारी सेवक नहीं है। ऐसे में याची को मृतक आश्रित कोटे में नौकरी पाने का अधिकार नही है। वर्कचार्ज कर्मचारियों के पेंशन के मुद्दे पर निर्णयों में मतभिन्नता के कारण कोर्ट ने यह मुद्दा वृहद् पीठ को संदर्भित कर दिया है।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49655 of 2015
Petitioner :- Mukesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.P. Yadav,Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.S. Bundela, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 is taken on record.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 6.5.2015 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father late Radhey Shyam Yadav was working as a daily wager in 1980 in the Public Words Department, Allahabad as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition and thereafter he worked as Beldar and work charge employee on 16.3.1988. He died while working as such.
Thereafter his widow late Smt. Dhanpatti Devi submitted an application on 29.11.2005 seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Her application was rejected by the respondents by order dated 7.12.2005.The said order was never challenged and has become final. Thereafter the present petitioner who is stated to be the son of late Radhey Shyam Yadav moved his application on 23.4.2015 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.5.2015.
So far as the grant of compassionate appointment to the dependants of a work charge or daily wages employee is concerned the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L & S) 304 in paragraph 24 and 32 has held as under:
"24. Indisputably the services of the deceased had not been regularized. In both the cases the writ petitions were filed but no effective relief thereto had been granted. In the case of late Leeladhar Pandey, allegedly, he was drawing salary on a regular scale of pay.That may be so but the same would not mean that there existed a regular vacancy.
32. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the daily wage employees would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules. they are, in our opinion, not covered in the definition of the "government employee".
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 664 in para 26 has clearly held that a daily wager and work-charge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules. The relevant paragraph 26 of the said judgment reads as under:
"26. On the aforesaid discussion, and in view of the law laid down in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi (Supra), we answer the questions posed as follows:-
(1). A daily wager and work charge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules.
2. The judgements in Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, 1991 (18) ALR 591; Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No.24231 of 1998 decided on 2.3.1998); State of U.P. Vs. Maya Devi (Special Appeal No.409 of 1998); Santosh Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 (4) ESC (Alld) 1615; and Anju Misra Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201 giving benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of daily wage and workcharge employee have not been correctly decided."
In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2015
o.k.
