# Devendra Kumar Jaisawal v. State Of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16935 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-kumar-jaisawal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41710
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All] Devendra Kumar Jaisawal V. State of U.P. and others.
907

25. In view of the above discussions,
all the three writ petitions are hereby
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable
by each petitioner individually within a
period of one month and are also required to
hand over the possession forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16935 of 2008

Devendra Kumar Jaisawal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri Rama Nand Pandey,
Sri Pradeep Narain Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art 226-ServiceCompassionate
Appointment-U.P.
Recruitment
of
dependants
of
Govt.
servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974,
Rule 2 (a)-length of service of deceased
employee-requirement
of
three
years
continues service-held, not a sine qua non
for regular employees-direction issued for
providing appointment of petitioners

Held Para 9 and 10

On facts in the present case, it remains
undisputed that the petitioner's father had
been regularly appointed and, therefore,
the three years completion of service is not
a sine qua non for such an employee to
enable
his
dependant
to
claim
appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules. The impugned order has, therefore,
been passed against records and by
misconstruing the Rules. The counter
affidavit also suffers from the same
infirmity.

In this view of the matter, the order dated
26.12.2007 is unsustainable. It is hereby
quashed. The respondent-Director shall
proceed to process the appointment of the
petitioner
under
the
compassionate
appointment rules forthwith and pass an
order within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order before him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A. P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Narain Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel for the State.

2.

The
petitioner
claims
compassionate appointment after the death
of his father late Dr. Ram Pratap Jaisawal,
who died in harness within a short span of
time while working as Medical Officer.

3. The petitioner's father had been
selected in the year 1988 but on account of
pending litigations the appointment order
could not be issued and that took several
years. Ultimately, he came to be appointed
on 7th April, 2000. The appointment order
was issued after the litigation had come to
an end and the appointment was made on a
temporary basis against a substantive
vacancy. After selection, it was a regular
employment. Unfortunately, he died on
13th July, 2000 within a short span of
time.

4.
 The petitioner
applied
for
compassionate appointment and the same
has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner's father had not completed three
years of regular service and, therefore, in
view of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants of Government Servants Dying
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner
cannot get the benefit of compassionate
appointment.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
and the same stand has been taken in the
counter affidavit.

6. Learned standing counsel contends
that the petitioner has been rightly nonsuited as his father had worked only for
three months.

7. Having perused the affidavit
exchanged between the parties, it would be
appropriate to quote Rule 2(a) of the Rules,
1974 which indicates the definition of a
Government servant:

"2 (a) "Government servant" means a
Government
servant
employed
in
connection with the affairs of Uttar
Pradesh, who-

(i)
was
permanent
in
such
employment; or

(ii) though temporary had been
regularly appointed in such employment; or

(iii) though not regularly appointed,
had put in three years continuous service in
regular vacancy in such employment."

8. A perusal of the aforesaid definition
indicates that a Government Servant has
been defined alternatively in three clauses
as contained therein. All three clauses are
independent of each other. The criteria of an
employee having put in three years
continuous service is in respect of a
Government servant who has not been
regularly appointed but has put in three
years continuous service in a regular
vacancy. Thus, the aforesaid rider of three
years is a precondition in relation to such
category of Government employees, who
have not been regularly appointed.

9. On facts in the present case, it
remains undisputed that the petitioner's
father had been regularly appointed and,
therefore, the three years completion of
service is not a sine qua non for such an
employee to enable his dependant to claim
appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules. The impugned order has, therefore,
been passed against records and by
misconstruing the Rules. The counter
affidavit also suffers from the same
infirmity.

10. In this view of the matter, the
order dated 26.12.2007 is unsustainable. It
is hereby quashed. The respondent-Director
shall proceed to process the appointment of
the petitioner under the compassionate
appointment rules forthwith and pass an
order within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order before him.

11. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34565 of 2003

Sanjiv Kumar Rastogi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional
Commissioner/Chief
Controlling
Revenue
Authority
and
another

 ...Respondent