High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142882 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1476 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P. Tiwari,Ranjeet Singh,Rishi Kant Rai,Vinay Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ayush Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.
Decision
2. In the present case, father of petitioner died in harness on 28.09.1999, leaving behind his illiterate wife and three minor children including petitioner. It is not under much dispute that initially mother of petitioner has filed an application for compassionate appointment, however, when it was not considered, she has approached this Court by way of filing Writ- A No. 44334 of 2002, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.10.2002 with observation that her claim be considered. 3. On basis of above order, claim of mother of petitioner was considered, however, by an order dated 21.04.2003, she was not appointed since no post in class IV was vacant as well as she was not educationally qualified. The mother of petitioner was satisfied with aforesaid order since she has not challenged it and after about a decade, when present petitioner became major, she has again filed an application that petitioner be considered for compassionate appointment. 4. As referred above, claim was filed after more than a decade, therefore, it appears that it rightly not considered under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, however, by an order dated 26.07.2013, petitioner was offered appointment on post of conductor on contract basis, having consideration that his father was an employee of respondent and has died in harness and accordingly, petitioner joined the said post on contract basis and it appears that he still working on contract basis. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, after working for about 4 years, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition that his appointment on contract basis be treated as regular appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once petitioner's claim was considered under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 he cannot be appointed as a contract basis rather he be deemed as a regular appointee and for that he placed reliance on Manoj Kumar Vs. Ziladhikari Distt. Mainpuri and Another, 2024 (1) ADJ 163, Shahrukh Husain Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and 4 others, 2019 (6) ADJ 824, Durgesh Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (7) ADJ 146, Rajeev Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others and Sandeep Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ-A No.- 1238 of 2023 Learned counsel also refers that in similar circumstances, appointment of one Nikhil Sharma and Another was upheld upto Supreme Court as the Division Bench of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow and others Vs. Nikhil Sharma and Another, Civil Appeal No. 7051 of 2023 has dismissed the Special Appeal Defective No.153 of 2018 filed by the State and thereafter when state has challenged the said order before Supreme Court, it was also rejected and appointment of petitioners therein were considered as regular appointee. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that claim of petitioner's mother was already rejected for compassionate appointment and a claim set up after 14 years of death of his father cannot be considered under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rule, 1974, however, showing sympathetic view, he was offered appointment on post of conductor on contract basis and by referring appointment letter dated 26.07.2013, he submits that petitioner was considered appointment on contract basis being a son of deceased employee. Appointment on contract basis was also granted to other persons from other categories also. No provision of Rules of 1974 was applied, otherwise also consideration after prescribed period of 5 years from the death of a deceased employee could be taken by State only. 8. Learned counsel further submits that relied upon judgments are distinguishable on facts. 9. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The aforesaid facts are not under dispute that firstly claim of mother of petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected which remained unchallenged and after about 14 years, petitioner has made claim for compassionate appointment and the maximum period limit for considering compassionate appointment is five years. There is no document on record that appropriate authority has granted direction to consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment as an application submitted beyond five years. 10. The contents of appointment letter dated 26.07.2013 being relevant are reproduced hereinafter :- "वविषययः शቦኍ ससोननू पपु्ቔ स्वि० शቦኍ नने्ቔपपाल ससिሺह, सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक (ममृतक आसशत) कसो कपायर परि लनेनने कने सम्बन्ध मम। उपरिसो्ሹ वविषय मम पररिविहन वनगम मपुख्यपालय , लखनऊ कने पररिप्ቔ सिሺ० 5510 सቦኍईएनटቦኍ वदनपााሩक 31.08.2012 कने अनपुपपालन मम शቦኍ ससोननू पपु्ቔ स्वि० शቦኍ नने्ቔपपाल ससिሺह , कसो इस कपायपारलय कने आदनेश सिሺख्यपा -8645 वदनपााሩक 22..07.2013 कने दपारिपा ममृतक आसशत कसोटने कने अन्तगरत वनगम मपुख्यपालय दपारिपा वनधपारररित शतरिሺ परि सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक कपा कपायर करिनने हनेतपु लसोनቦኍ वडिपसो सने सम्ब्ቍ वकयपा गयपा हहै। उ्ሹ सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक सने ्ቚवतभनूवत रिपावश कक मद मम रू०-10000.00 (दस हजपारि मपा्ቔ) रिसቦኍद सिሺख्यपा 408 वदनपााሩक 22.07.2013 कने दपारिपा वनगम कसोष मम जमपा करिपा लቦኍ गयቦኍ हहै। अतयः उ्ሹ सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक कने अनपुबन्ध प्ቔ, लपाइसनेन्स कक छपायपा्ቚवत, शहैवቌኌक यसोग्यतपा कने ्ቚमपाण प्ቔ एिሺवि फसोटसो ्ቚमपावणत करि इस वनदरश कने सपाथ भनेजቦኍ जपा रिहቦኍ हहै वक ्ቚमपावणत फसोटसो सने वमलपान करि प्ቔ कने सपाथ सिሺल्ሿ अनपुबन्ध प्ቔ वि शपथ प्ቔ अपनने स्तरि सने वनष्पपावदत करि एवििሺ अनपुबन्ध सने सम्बनन्धत आविश्यक औपचपाररिकतपाएाሩ पनूणर करिपानने कने उपरिपान्त उ्ሹ सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक सने बस परि पररिचपालन कपा कपायर लनेनपा सपुवननश्चत करिम। उपरिसो्ሹ कने सपाथ सपाथ वनदरवशत वकयपा जपातपा हहै वक अनपुबन्ध प्ቔ वि शपथ प्ቔ पनूणर करि उ्ሹ सिሺवविदपा पररिचपालक कक मनूल प्ቔपाविलቦኍ इस कपायपारलय कसो उपलब्ध करिपायम। सिሺल्ሿयः अनपुबन्ध प्ቔ, शपथ प्ቔ, लपाइसनेन्स एवििሺ शहैवቌኌक यसोग्यतपा ्ቚमपाण प्ቔኘ᭖ कक छपायपा्ቚवत एवििሺ फसोटसो कक ्ቚमपावणत ्ቚवत।" 11. As referred above petitioner's appointment on contract was on basis of a circular dated 31.07.2012. There is no reference that order was made under relevant Rules of 1974. Only a reference that ममृतक आसशत कसोटपा would not be sufficient to hold that appointment was made under the relevant Rules of 1974. In this regard, the Court takes note of a judgment placed by counsel for respondent passed by Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Briejsh Kumar and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 and its relevant paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 17 are reproduced hereinafter :- "15. A plain reading of the policy decision as contained in letter dated 31.08.2012, the letter of offer dated 19.10.2012 and the agreement dated 12.12.2012, it is crystal clear that the respondent was appointed as a contract conductor on preferential basis being the son of the deceased employee. He was not appointed on compassionate basis. There is no reference of any compassionate appointment in any document. 16. The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on contract basis pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment would not make his appointment to be one under Dying in Harness Rules. 17. There appears to be no document on record to prove that the appointment of the respondent was on compassionate basis so as to treat him as a permanent employee of the appellant (UPSRTC). Despite repeated queries, no specific material was shown from the side of the respondent to establish that the respondent in fact was appointed on compassionate basis. The respondent had accepted the offer of contractual employment with his open eyes and had even signed the agreement to that effect which is not disputed. Thus, his appointment was simply on contract basis and cannot be treated as permanent." 12. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondent that case of petitioner is squarely covered against petitioner by aforesaid judgment of Brijesh Kumar (supra). In present case also appointment was made in pursuance of a policy decision dated 31.08.2012 and petitioner was appointed purely on contract basis without even taking aid of relevant Rules of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Only a reference that his claim was considered under the quota of deceased employee would not be sufficient to hold that appointment was made under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, reliance placed by counsel for petitioner on various judgments are not helpful. 13. In present case, appointment was purely on contract basis on basis of policy decision without aid of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, prayer made in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad