Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARITA SAXENA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarita Saxena v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 14156 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 4582 (15 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 20

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14156 of 2001

Sarita Saxena

Vs.

State of U.P. & another

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard Sri Vedmani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the orders dated 24.12.1998 and 15.12.2000 (Annexure 13 and 16 to the writ petition) by which she was denied appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of her husband for the reason that her husband was only a muster roll employee..

The husband of the petitioner Late Pradeep Kumar Saxena was admittedly appointed as Lab Assistant-cum-Technician in the office of the Executive Engineer, C.D- 23, U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad w.e.f. 1.1.1985. He continued to work ever since then till his death on 28.10.1998 as a daily wage/muster roll employee. On his death the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and her application has been rejected by the impugned orders.

It is not disputed that the U.P. Recruitment of Government Servants, Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 have been adopted and mayde applicable upon the employees of the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad also. The only ground for rejection of the petitioner's representation is that her late husband was only a muster roll employee and was not a permanent employee and, therefore, she  is not entitled for any compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for all practical purposes the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee having worked continuously for over 13 years and, therefore, the benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be denied to her. In support he has placed reliance upon a number of decisions of this Court including (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1421  Meena Devi Chaudhari (Smt.) Vs. Chief Engineer, U.P. Public Works Department, Lucknow & others. In this case also the husband of the petitioner was employed on daily wages in P.W.D. and continued as such till his death, even then the High Court directed for consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment on merits and not to deny the same on the ground that her husband was temporary or a daily wage employee. Another decision relied upon in this regard is (2004) 1 UPLBEC 201 Anju Misra (Smt.) Vs. General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur. In this case also the husband of the petitioner before his death had worked as daily wager for 11 years and the petitioner was refused compassionate appointment on the ground that he was not a permanent employee. The Court held that such refusal is discriminatory and violates of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution.

In view of the above decisions, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law and he cannot be denied the said benefit  merely because her husband was a muster roll/daily wage employee.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.12.1998 and 15.12.2000 are quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider afresh the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on merits in accordance with law as directed above as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Dt. 15.3.07

S.S.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.