(Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) v. State of Uttaranchal

In the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (4) SCC,

468. The Apex Court has held as under: - “ We consider it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionated grounds, there should not be any delay appointment. The purpose providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earned in the family. Such appointment should therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If suitable appointment supernumerary should created accommodate the applicant. In the result, we allow the appeal and in reversal of the order of the High Court, we direct respondent no.2 to appoint – “Sushma Gosain appellant in the post to which she has already qualified. We further direct that she shall be appointed in an appropriate place in Delhi itself. The appointment shall be made within three weeks from today.” In Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (2202) 1 UPLBEC 337. It has been held as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad (Supra), stressing his submission petitioner’s father would be deemed to have been a regular Government servant in view of the fact that his appointment has been convert into work charge employee in pursuance of the scheme approved by the Apex Court. He further submitted that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Pushp Lata Dixit vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, reported in 1991 (18) ALR 591,the petitioner is entitled for getting the appointment. In this case, the husband of Smt. Pushp Lata was working as a Paid Apprentice. The plea that he was not a regular employee although he had been working in the department for the last 17 years was not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness Rule was rejected by the court and the directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner (Smt. Pushp Lata) according to her qualifications relying upon this case, the writ petition filed by Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and others, reported in1998 (79) FLR 608, was also allowed in which the High Court found that the petitioner’s husband in that case has satisfactorily worked for about 10 years until his death and though he may be a daily wager, the petitioner can be accommodated on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2187 (All):1 UPLBEC (Alld) (Sum) 15, the benefit was given to the temporary appoint as he was working against a substantive vacancy.” “The Apex Court was considering the scheme and the status of a work charge employee even after being confirmed it has been held that a work charge employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work charge employee and he continues to be a work charge employee. The question of regularization against a regular vacancy was not in issue before the Apex Court. No rule, law of any Government order has been brought to the notice of this court by the State to indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the work charge employee who have to their credit a considerable period of service and even in cases after very longer period of service, they retire as such. Even no provision for confirmation of a work charge employee as a work charge employee available in the State of Uttar Pradesh nor any such provision has been shown by learned State counsel despite being specifically asked for”. “It may also be taken note of that if daily wager or a work charge employee is engaged against a particular duty or post, and that work is of perennial nature, the presumption would be that such an employee would be entitled for being treated to have been continuing against a regular vacancy”. “It is also not disputed that appointments of such nature have already been given by the department earlier and the respondents State has not been able to indicate as to why the same benefit has not been given to the petitioner”. In Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another 1996 1SCC 301, it has been held as under: “The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as will appear from the order impugned which has been passed that the petitioner has been treated to be a work charged employee and, therefore, the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules has extended petitioner. The representations of the petitioner are still pending. It is well settled the compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rule can be extended even to a daily wager. A perusal of the record of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has not been paid the emoluments which are due to the petitioner, towards retiral benefits which petitioner is demanding time by way of representations. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to release the entire retiral benefits within a period of 6 weeks on the application filed by the petitioner in this regard. Further the respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner in accordance with the rules framed under the Dying in Harness Rules. Any order passed by the department shall be subject to the final order passed on the representation of the petitioner which the petitioner may file within 10 days and the respondents are directed to dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

28.02.2006. Negi. (Rajesh Tandon. J)