LAIMANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. R. Vasishth, J. The petitioner is a dependant widow of one Munna Lal Prajapati who died in harness on 17-11-1994 while working on the workcharge estab lishment under the respondents she seeks employment on compassionate ground in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

(2.) IT was averred that the petitioner's deceased husband Munna Lal after having put in more than ten years satisfactory ser vice as a daily rated helper under the respon dents was taken on the rolls of work charge establishment in regular pay scale with ef fect from 1-8-1989 against a substantive vacancy. He died in harness on 17-11-1994 during his posting in the office of the Ex ecuting Engineer, Construction Division, P. W. D. , Lucknow leaving behind two minor unmarried daughters, a minor son and a married daughter besides the petitioner widow. The family had no source of sus tenance and the petitioner was feeling great difficulties in coping with the hard life and bringing up the minor children including two unmarried daughters. She, therefore, approached the respondents for appoint ment in Class IV service on the ground of compassion as permissible under the rules. IT was contended that even though some vacancies were available, yet the respon dents did not exceed to her request and as such she had no alternative except to seek the intervention of the writ Court for the appropriate directions by way of a man damus to the respondents for her appoint ment on some class IVth assignment.

(3.) THE only point for consideration before this Court therefore, is as to whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of the rules despite being outside the purview of her husband's regular Government employ ment. THE learned Standing Counsel relied on Government Circular dated 11-8-1993 contained in Annexure C. A. 3 which clarified that the expenses of the work-charge establishment were not to be put under the head of salaries of the regular employees because they were not to be treated as regular Government employees and were thus not entitled for the benefit of the rules with regard to employment of their dependents in case of dying in harness. It was in the light of said circular that the petitioner's representation for considera tion of employment on the regular estab lishment in pursuance to an interim order of this Court was declined by the department vide order dated 16-11- 1995 contained in Annexure C. A. 4. Taken to the logical end, thesubmission of the learned counsel would show that the Government circular for categorising the expenses of the work charge employees as a fiscal arrangement and the department's decision on petitioner's representation for employ ments infallible. THE court is not impressed with the endeavour because the issue of applicability of the rules has to be taken in the totality of the material rather than iso lated or casual interpretation thereof by the department or some interim arrangement for placing the expenses of the estab lishment under a particular head.