HARVATI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed alleging that the husband of all the three petitioners were working as Work Charged Employee with the respondent-Corporation from 1990 to 1994 and continued to work for more than 10 years. Unfortunately, the husband of all the three petitioners died on 30/6/2004, 28/1/2005 and 4/11/2005 respectively during their employment. After the death of the husband of the petitioners, on an application moved by the petitioners, they were granted appointment as is indicated in Annexure No. 2, 4 and 6 of various dates from the year 2004 onwards. The petitioners were subsequently directed to be paid consolidated salary at the rate of Rs.18,000.00 per month and the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 continued to work since 2004 onwards and since 2005 in respect of third petitioner. The payments made to the petitioners are exhibited to the document subjected as Annexure Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to the writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that after more than 10 years of the service by the husbands of the petitioners and more than 15 years of service by the petitioners, all of sudden, an order dtd. 9/11/2020 has been passed to the effect that there is no need for the service of the petitioners and, thus, the petitioners were not allowed to continue to work from the said date i.e. 9/11/2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the State being model employer cannot exploit persons like the petitioners in the manner in which they have been exploited. Petitioners' poor financial condition never permitted them to protest their exploitation at the hands of the respondents and they continued to discharge their duties. He further argues that the petitioners' husbands were work charged employees and would fall within the definition of government servant, as defined under Sec. 2(a) of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and thus, appointment of the petitioner has to be treated as compassionate appointment. He further argues that compassionate appointments are never temporary in nature. He further argues that the husband of the petitioners were entitled for regularization as is clear from the note dtd. 11/6/2019 (Annexure No. 9, Page 41 of the Writ Petition). However, all these rights, whichever accrued in favour of the petitioners, were not agitated by the petitioners looking into their poor financial condition. Petitioners, admittedly, are a Class-IV employee and are uneducated.