SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that looms large in this petition is whether the services of dependent of a Government servant dying-in-harness could be dispensed with as a sequel to the directions contained in the Government order dated 2.5.2002.

(2.) Matrix of the necessary facts is that petitioner's father, namely, late Hari Prakash, who had been serving as Safai Karamchari in the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, died on 28.2,2001. Thereafter, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and consequently, he was offered appointment on the vacant post held by his father though on daily wage basis vide order dated 3.7,2001 and was attached to Health Department of the Nagar Nigam. It would transpire from the record that State Government issued Government order dated 2nd May, 2002, addressed to Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur, the text of which was that the benefit of dying-in-harness rules would not be applicable to daily wage employees and as such appointment under dying-in-harness rules on death of a daily wage employee was invalid, attended with further direction to terminate the services of all casual employees under intimation to the Government. It would thus appear that background of the impugned order dated 21.5.2002, thereby rescinding the appointment and terminating the services of the petitioner, is the Government order aforestated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner began his submission arguing that the father of the petitioner had put in 13 years of service in the Nagar Nigam unto the date of his death and he served all these years in the Nagar Nigam as Safai Karmachari on the post which was born of requirements of the Nagar Nigam. He further canvassed that Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974, had been adopted for application to all the local bodies including Nagar Nigam. He also drew attention of the Court to the relevant provision in the dying-in-harness rules the quintessence of which is that benefit of dying-in-harness rules would extend coverage to a person appointed temporarily for more than 3 years. He assailed the order of the State Government containing direction to terminate the services of the petitioner, who wa's appointed under dying-in-harness rules, as one militating against the provisions of law and the U. P. Recruitment of Government Servants Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974. He also referred to the Government order dated 5.11.2002 (Annexure-4) and also the Government order dated 15th October, 1998, according to which even the work charge employees were entitled to the benefit flowing from dying-in-harness rules. Sri Prem Chand, learned counsel representing the Nagar Nigam and the standing counsel, in unison, contended in opposition that since the father of the petitioner had served in the Nagar Nigam on daily wage basis though at the same time conceded that he had put in about 13 years of service at the time of his death, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.