1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 7157 (SS) of 2000
Ram Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opposite parties
------------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the father of the
petitioner while working on the post of Roller Driver in regular
work charge establishment, expired on 28.7.1981. On an
application moved by the petitioner for compassionate
appointment under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner was
offered an appointment on the post of Chaukidar on daily wage basis
on 9.6.1982.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
appointment, which has been offered, under the Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974, should be of permanent nature, instead he has been
appointed on daily wage basis on 1.7.1990.Though he is entitled for
regular employment, yet he was reduced to Muster Roll subsequently.
Thereafter, his services have been terminated on 1.7.1990 treating
him as work charge employee.
A perusal of the impugned Award dated 9.6.1982, it reflects that
the petitioner on his own has remained absent from 1.8.1982 to
17.8.1982, 1.10.1982 to 19.10.1982 and 11.11.1982 to 21.1.1983
and as such, he was terminated . Since the appointment is permanent
in nature under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and
as such, the petitioner is to be treated as permanent employee and
accordingly, the services cannot be dispensed simply on the ground
that he is remained absent and he is not interested in performing his
duties. In case, he has remained absent for a long period, then his
services can be dismissed only in accordance with rules, as applicable
to those of permanent employees in the establishment. Admittedly, no
2
proceedings have been initiated for terminating the services of the
petitioner, but the case of the opposite parties before the Labour Court
is that he worked on the offered post from 9.6.1982 to 28.2.1983.
Subsequently, his services were terminated. Thereafter, he remained
absent and as such, he is not interested in carrying out his duties.
Therefore, the Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the
petitioner was offered compassionate appointment under Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-
Harness Rules, 1974 and the Award dated 19.8.1997 is liable to be
quashed.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the order
passed by the labour Court dated 19.8.1997 is quashed. The
matter is remanded to the opposite party No.6 to decide the
matter, afresh, in accordance with law, within a maximum period
of three months, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to
adduce the evidence. It is made clear that the opposite party
No.6/Labour Court, while deciding the matter, may apply its
independent mind and shall not be guided by any of the
observations made here-in-above.
Dt.5.1.2010
Lakshman/