SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is a widow with four small children. The petitioner's husband died in harness on 4.5.1998 and she has claimed appointment under Dying in and Harness Rules.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no appointment under Dying and Harness Rules can be given to the petitioner in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Rani Devi J.T. 1996 (6) page 646. He has invited our attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment in which it has been held that a casual or ad hoc appointee cannot be given benefit of the G.O. dated 31.10.1985, I have carefully perused the aforesaid decision and in my opinion, it is distinguishable. The petitioner's husband was not a purely casual or ad hoc employee. He was a temporary appointee who had worked against a substantive vacancy from 18.4.1987 and had worked for more that 11 years. The decision of the Supreme Court applied to a case of a casual or ad hoc appointee e.g. a person appointed for a period of one month who died after 20 days of appointment. In case of such a casual appointee obviously the benefit of Dying and Harness Rules cannot be given. Hence the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in this case as the petitioner's husband worked for over 11 years.

(3.) More ever in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant, Dying and Harness Rules it has been mentioned in rule 2(3) that the benefit of the Dying and Harness Rules may be given to the dependent where the deceased had worked for at least three years. Since the petitioner" husband worked for over 11 years the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Dying and Harness Rules.