Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MARKANDEY DUBEY versus THE U.P.S.E.B. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Markandey Dubey v. The U.P.S.E.B. & Others - WRIT - A No. 51923 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 8032 (30 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the petitioner is that his father late Chandrika Dubey died in harness on 15.8.1997 who was engaged as regular muster roll collie  in November, 1987 with the respondents.  It is alleged that from 1978 onwards,  his father was working as a daily wager in the respondent-Board and pursuant to mandamus dated 22.5.1995 issued by the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 13895 of 1995-Sunil Tewari and others Vs.U.P. State Electrictiy Board and others directing the respondents to pay the same salary which were being paid to the regular employee on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work', father of the petitioner was given pay equivalen to regular employees.

After the death of his father, the petitioner moved applications dated 15.9.1997 and 1.8.1998 for giving him compassionate appointment. When his application remained inactioned by the respondent no. 4,  he filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 37163 of 1998 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8.12.1998 directing respondent no. 4 to examine, consider and pass appropriate orders in regard to appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.  

The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.8.1999 as under :-  

" i=kad % 2241@ fofo/k (ns)@lh&18 (ekjd.Ms) fnukad 28-8-99

      fo"k; % e`rd vkfJr ds ,ot esa lsok;kstu ds laca/k esa A

Jh ekjds.Ms nwcs iq= Lo0 pfUnzdk nwcs

xzke eyqvk nwcs iksLV ijfl;k feJ

tuin nsofj;k

;kfpdk la[;k 37163@98 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 8-12-98 ds lanHkZ esa vkids Dyse dk gej igyw ls ijh{k.k fd;k x;k A pwWfd vkids firk eLVj jksy Jfed ds #i esa dHkh dHkh dk;Z fd;s ifj"kn ds fu;fer deZpkjh ugha Fks ifj"kknknslkuqlkj eLVj jksy ij dHkh dHkh dk;Z dj pqds Jfed dh e`R;q ds i'pkr mlds Lfkku ij mlds vkfJr ds lksok;kstu dk dksbZ izkfo/kku ugha gS

vr% vkidk fu;qfDr laca/kh izkFkZuki= lE;d fopkjksijkUr fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A

                                           g0 vLi"V

                                       vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk"

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he has invoked the writ jurisdictin by means of the instant writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in view of clause 2 of the 'Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Sewa Kal Main Mrit Parishadiya Sewakon ds Ashriton Ki Bharti Niyamawali, 1975' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Niyamawali of 1975'), which defines employee of the Board, his late father is covered by the definition and no distinction can be made by he respondents for denying the claim of the petitioner that his father had worked from time to time as muster roll employee unless it is proved that his appointment is not covered by the definition, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974.

Clause 2 of Niyamawali of 1975 is relevant for resolution of the controversy involved in this case, which is as under :-

"2- ifjHkk"kk,a%&

tc rd fd lanHkZ esa vU;Fkk visf{kr u gks] bl fu;ekoyh esa---

(d) '' ifj"knh; lsod" dk rkRi;Z mRrj izns'k ds dk;Z&dyki ds laca/k esa lsok;ksftr ,sls ifj"knh; lsod ls gS tks&

(1) ,sls lsok;kstu esa LFkkbZ Fkk] ;k

(2) ;/kfi vLFkkbZ gS rFkkfi ,sls lsok;kstu esa fu;fer #i ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk ;k

(3) ;/kfi fu;fer #i ls fu;qDr ugha gS rFkkfi ,slk lsok;kstu esa fu;fer fjfDr esa rhu o"kZ dh fujUrj lsok dh gSA

Li"Vhdj.k%&

'fu;fer #i ls fu;qDr' dk rkRi;Z] ;FkkfLFkfr in ij ;k lsok esa HkrhZ ds fy, vf/kdfFkr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fu;qDr fd;s tkus ls gS A

([k) ' e`r ifj"knh; lsod' dk rkRi;Z ,sls ifj"knh; lsod ls gS ftldh e`R;q lsok esa jgrs gq, gks tkos]

(x) ' dqVqEc' ds vUrxZr e`r ifj"knh; lsods ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh gksaxs %&

(1) iRuh ;k ifr

(2) iq= ftldk rkRi;Z dsoy fgUnw deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeysa esa nRrd iq= ls Hkh gksxk A

(3) vfookfgr iqf=;kWa rFkk fo/kok iqf=;kWaA

(?k) 'dk;kZy; dk iz/kku' dk rkRi;Z ml dk;kZy; ds iz/kku ls gS ftl dk;kZy; esa e`r ifj"knh; lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ lsokjr Fkk A"

It is admitted that the father of the petitioner was in regular appointment which is clear from the details given in the case of Sunil Tiwari and others(supra)  and that he had even otherwise remained in continuous service for more than three years from 1978 to 1997 till his death. Under Rule 6 of the Niyamawai of 1975  it is the financial condition of the family which is to be looked into as object of appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974.  The aim and object of the legislature in enacting U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 was to ensure that dependents of deceased Government Servant may not pass their days in chill penury after the death of sole bread earner.  The appointing authority has to record its satisfaction as regards general qualifiations of the candidate before order is to be issued in accordance with the legislating factor under Rules 5 and 6 of the said Rules.

Accordingly, the the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 2  to reconsider the case of the petitoner keeping in view the provisions of Clause 2 of the Niyamawali of 1974 read with Rules 2,5 and 6 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 and pass appropriate speaking and reasoned orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order as to costs.

Dated 30.4.2007

kkb


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.