Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Brindawati Shukla v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 20156 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7958 (27 April 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).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition  the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.12.2006 Annexure-8 to the writ petition  by which order the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment  on account of the death of petitioner's  husband Bal Mukund Shukla has been rejected.  Bal Mukund Shukla was working on daily wage basis in the department  as electrician.  He was engaged  in the year 1986 as muster roll worker  and died on 9.5.2002.  By the impugned order it has been held that the petitioner's claim is not covered by the rules namely,  U.P. Rajay Vidyut Parishadiya Mritak Sewakon Ke Ashriton Ki Bharti Niyamawali, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that that the petitioner's case is covered by rule 2-A (3)  Explanation .  He submits that  since he was working for more than three years ' period on daily wage basis the same should be treated as regularly appointed. The perusal of rule 2-A indicate that the employee of Board covers three categories (i) who is confirmed employee (ii) even if temporary appointed on regular basis (iii) even if appointed not on regular basis, is working in a regular vacancy for continued  period of three years .  The explanation clarifies that the regularly appointed in regular  capacity must be as far as possible after  following the procedure for recruitment. The petitioner's husband being working on daily wage  basis it cannot be said that he was engaged  by following the process of recruitment.  The view taken by the respondents that the petitioner's case is  not  covered by 1975 Rules does not suffer from any error.  No ground is made out to interfere.

The writ petition  is dismissed.




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


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 |

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