STATE OF U P Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief the facts of this case are that the husband of the sole respondent-writ petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi was an employee of the Public Works Department who died in harness on 30.6.1991. The respondent-writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the "Dying in Harness Rules"). On her application, she was given appointment on 24.4.1993 as a permanent class IV employee. By order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner was down-graded from that of a permanent employee to a work charge employee on the ground that her husband was a work charge employee, and not a permanent employee. Further, recovery of the difference of salary from the date of initial appointment i.e. 24.4.1993 till the date of passing of the order i.e. 18.2.2005 was also directed. Challenging the same, the respondent-writ petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12190 of 2005 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 10.8.2011. Challenging the same, this special appeal has been filed by the State.

(2.) We have heard Sri C.B.Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Sri A.K.Roy, learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and have perused the record.

(3.) The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General is primarily that since the husband of the writ-petitioner was a work charge employee, the writ-petitioner would not have been entitled to the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules but on misrepresentation of the writ-petitioner that her husband was a permanent employee of the Public Works Department, the appointment was wrongly given to her and on coming to know of the correct facts regarding her misrepresentation at the time of seeking appointment, her appointment as a permanent employee has been down-graded to that of a work charge employee, on which position the husband of the writ-petitioner was working.