LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-8

SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 11, 2006
SATYENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 22-4-2006 by which the claim of regular appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that all appointment on compassionate ground are necessarily made in permanent establishment. The petitioner has failed to point out any rule or regulation to support his contention. The object of giving compassionate appointment is to help the bereaved family of a deceased breadwinner to tide over the financial crises occasioned due to the sudden death. Such appointments are de hors the rules but have been saved on compassionate grounds from the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This method of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a person cannot claim a higher status or salary than that of a deceased breadwinner. Under Regulation 3 of the U. P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) members of the service have been classified in various categories and the seasonal staff is at the bottom of the said category. The pay scale of the regular staff and salary of seasonal staff has also been provided in Regulation 4. A perusal whereof shows that while the regular staff is entitled to regular pay scale together with increments etc. , the seasonal staff is entitled to only fixed salary. Allowances are admissible to the regular staff and comparatively those given to the seasonal staff are minimal. A perusal of Regulations 22, 23 and 26 would show that seasonal staff are to be appointed subject to the availability of work in a particular season but their services can be terminated on a week's notice in view of Regulation 34. Admittedly, father of the petitioner was a seasonal employee, who was working subject to the limitations as noticed hereinabove, thus, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right appointment on compassionate basis in the regular establishment.