SUNDARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the petitioner compassionate appointment due to death of her husband who was working as Clerk in Meerut Development Authority, Meerut for the last 17 years. It is an admitted case of both the side that the petitioner's husband was a daily wage work charge employee. It is not disputed that U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) are applicable to the Meerut Development Authority for the purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the heirs of the deceased employee, who died in harness. However, the only question come up for consideration is whether the said benefit is available to the legal heirs of a daily wage employee or not under the 1974 Rules. Rule 2 (a) of 1974 Rules reads as under:

(2.) This very rule has recently been considered by the Apex Court in General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and others, (2009) 7 SCC 205 wherein it has been held that the daily wager is not a Government employee. It has further been observed that in order to extend the benefit to the employees who are not appointed on regular basis but working against regular vacancy, it must be shown that there was a vacancy occurred on a sanctioned post and against such vacancy, the incumbent was working so as to get the benefit of Rule 2 (a) (iii) of 1974 Rules. Therein a similar argument was advanced that a work charge employee, if has worked continously for several years, would raise a presumption that there exists a vacancy and there is regular need of services. Reliance was sought to be placed on behalf of the employee to the Apex Court decision in Workmen v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd., (2006) 3 SCC 297. However rejecting the contention and distinguishing the above judgment, the Apex Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan (supra) observed as under:

(3.) Besides above, in respect to the another decision cited before the Apex Court, namely, Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 182, the Apex Court in para 30 clearly observed as under: "In any event all such decisions must be held to have been overruled in Umadevi."