MAHESH NATH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by denial of appointment under the UP Dependents of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short 'the 1974 Rules'), the petitioner is before the Court.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that his father Late Arjun Nath was appointed as part-time Tubewell Operator in the office of the respondent no.5 on 19/7/1988. He worked continuously working on that post. On 31/5/2012, the respondent no.2 regularized the services of the petitioner. Thereafter by an order dtd. 26/6/2012, appointment as a regular Tubewell Operator was given (annexure-2). In serial number 75 of it, the name of the father of the petitioner is revealed. He was regularized at the place, where he had been working. The father of the petitioner died on 8/11/2014. An information was given to the department and on 20/11/2014, a representation was also submitted for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. No action was taken on it, therefore, the petitioner again, on 23/4/2018, made another representation to the respondent no.5. By the impugned order dtd. 3/5/2018, the representation of the petitioner was again rejected on the ground that though services of father of the petitioner was regularized on 31/5/2012, but, pursuant to it, he never gave his joining, as such. It is the case of the petitioner that having regularized in the department, petitioner thereafter also rendered his services. He was getting the pay-scale as that of a regular employee. The rejection of the representation for appointment on compassionate ground is bad in the eye of law because according to it, condition 3 and 6 of the regularization order was not complied with by the petitioner. But, it was not applicable to the case of the petitioner. Because condition 3 of the order dtd. 26/6/2012 directs that charge was to be taken over by the regular employee within a period of one month and condition no. 6 applies to such part-time Tubewell Operator, who at the relevant time, were working with the Panchayati Raj Department.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working in the same sub division Haldwani where he was posted after regularization, therefore, he had no occasion to take fresh charge and he was not working with the Panhayati Raj department as is clear by communication dtd. 12/12/2012 of the respondents themselves, which is filed alongwith supplementary counter affidavit dtd. 24/7/2019.