SUSHEELA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge dismissed, by an order dated 27 February 2007, a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compassionate appointment in the Department of Social Welfare. The review petition which was filed in the year 2007 was eventually dismissed by an order dated 5 December 2013. Hence the original petitioner is in appeal. The husband of the appellant was employed in the Aadi Hindu Primary Pathshala, Kritpur, district Varanasi as an Assistant Teacher. He died on 8 October 2004. On 18 November 2004 the appellant made an application to the District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi seeking compassionate appointment. The application was rejected on 29 November 2004 on the ground that the Government Order dated 10 August 1998 does not apply to the dependants of deceased employees of aided Institutions.

(2.) The contention of the appellant is that her husband was employed by the Social Welfare Department. This is sought to be established on the basis that the letter of appointment was issued by the District Social Welfare Officer. Now a perusal of the letter of appointment (Annexure-2) would make it clear that at the relevant time, the District Social Welfare Officer was the Manager of the Institution. This does not establish the relationship of employment between the deceased and the State. The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 apply, by virtue of Rule 3, to the recruitment of dependants of deceased Government servants. The expression 'Government Servant' is defined in Rule 2(a) to mean a Government Servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in the original order and in the order passed in the recall application in coming to the conclusion that the mere fact that the husband of the appellant was appointed by the Manager of the Institution, who at the relevant time was the District Social Welfare Officer, Varanasi, would not detract from the fact that the Institution was an aided Institution. More over as the learned Single Judge observed, it has not been averred in the petition that the Institution in question was governed by the department of Social Welfare or that, therefore, the husband of the appellant became an employee of the department of Social Welfare.