SUSHILA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Shri Paras Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Verma, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

(2.) The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the controversy in hand are that the husband of the petitioner had joined the service in the Civil Aviation Department as a Class-IV employee in 1988. Later on he was promoted on the post of driver and continued in service till his death. The husband of the petitioner died during service period on 28.07.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and one minor daughter who had no source of income as the husband of the petitioner was the only bread earner of the family.

(3.) The petitioner, being an unemployed lady and dependent on her husband, had applied for compassionate appointment under the dying in harness rules. The petitioner was offered an appointment on the post of Clerk on 13.10.2006 under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as Rules 1974) and Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Dependants (Third Amendment) Rules 1993 subject to the Uttar Pradesh Civil Aviation Department (Operation Unit) Recruitment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2001) on a fixed remuneration of Rs.4500/- per month for a period of five years on contract basis from the date of joining. Since the petitioner was appointment on contractual basis she made a representation on 02.01.2007 against the condition imposed in offer of appointment but no decision was taken therefore the petitioner had joined the services under protest. She approached this Court challenging the order dated 13.10.2006 by which the petitioner has been appointed under dying in harness rules and the order dated 20.11.2006 by means of which the petitioner was asked to vacate the Government house allotted to the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to treat the appointment of petitioner as a regular appointment under the rules without any condition and pay her salary and other consequential benefits as it is paid to the other regular employees. The petitioner had also prayed for a direction to allot the residential premises in the name of the petitioner.