# Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC

- **Citation:** Service Single No. 17358 of 2018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-26
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 17358 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hindustan-tin-works-p-ltd-v-employees-hindustan-tin-works-p-ltd-v-employees-46228
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

1802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - Appointment under Dying
in Harness Rules - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 197-Section 2(c) -
Unmarried sister may be included in the
definition of 'family', if her brother i.e. the
deceased government servant was unmarried.
In the present case, the deceased government
servant was married, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be included in the definition of 'family'.
(Para 6, 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

## Text

3-5 All. Km. Pooja Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1801
him of the obligation to pay back wages
including the emolument."
(Emphasis supplied)

The
Court
laid
down
the
following principles to govern the payment
of back wages:

"38.1....

38.2. ...

38.3....

38.4...

38.5...

38.6. In a number of cases, the
superior courts have interfered with the
award
of
the
primary
adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalisation of
litigation has taken long time ignoring that
in majority of cases the parties are not
responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure
and
manpower
is
the
principal cause for delay in the disposal of
cases. For this the litigants cannot be
blamed or penalised. It would amount to
grave injustice to an employee or workman
if he is denied back wages simply because
there is long lapse of time between the
termination of his service and finality given
to the order of reinstatement. The courts
should bear in mind that in most of these
cases, the employer is in an advantageous
position
vis-à-vis
the
employee
or
workman. He can avail the services of best
legal brain for prolonging the agony of the
sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who
can ill-afford the luxury of spending money
on a lawyer with certain amount of fame.
Therefore, in such cases it would be
prudent to adopt the course suggested in
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees
[Hindustan
Tin
Works
(P)
Ltd.
v.
Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC
(L & S) 53] "

34. From the facts narrated above, it
is evident that the petitioner has been
vigilant
in
espousing his
cause
for
compassionate appointment and his rightful
claim for compassionate appointment was
denied by the illegal and arbitrary act of the
respondent no.3. Further, there is no fault
of the petitioner for the delay caused in
adjudication of the claim of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment, therefore,
the rightful claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment cannot be
denied on the ground of delay in view of
the settled principle of law that no one
should suffer for the fault of the court.

35. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the impugned order dated 09.11.2005 and
communication letter dated 04.11.2011
(Annexure
no.1
to
the
second
supplementary affidavit) are not sustainable
in law and are set aside. The writ petition is
allowed and the competent authority is
directed to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner in the light of observations made
above and pass appropriate order within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 17358 of 2018

Km. Pooja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neeraj Chaurasiya, Arvind Kumar Jauhari,
Ved Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, U.N. Mishra
1802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - Appointment under Dying
in Harness Rules - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 197-Section 2(c) -
Unmarried sister may be included in the
definition of 'family', if her brother i.e. the
deceased government servant was unmarried.
In the present case, the deceased government
servant was married, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be included in the definition of 'family'.
(Para 6, 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Jauhari, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State
respondents and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of this petition the
petitioner has prayed that the opposite
parties be directed to appoint the petitioner
under Dying in Harness Rules on suitable
post.

3. The present petitioner is unmarried
sister of late employee, namely Sanjay
Kumar Singh who was serving on the post
of 'Orderly' at District Judgeship, Lucknow.

4. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that since the employee
died on 15.6.2015 during the service period
leaving behind old aged mother, daughters
namely Km. Riya aged about 11 years, Km.
Saloni aged about 9 years and the petitioner
who is unmarried sister. The wife of late
employee died on 4.7.2010, before the
death of the deceased employee. All the
aforesaid family members were totally
dependent
upon
the
late
employee,
therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that in view of the
provisions
of
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependent of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 the petitioner
should be given any appointment under the
aforesaid rules.

5. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has
drawn attention of this Court towards the
definition of 'family' which has been given
under section 2(c) which reads as under :

"2(c) "family" shall include the
following
relations
of
the
deceased
Government servant:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons / adopted sons;

(iii)
Unmarried
daughters,
unmarried adopted daughters, widowed
daughters and widowed daughters and
widowed daughter-in-law;

(iv)
unmarried
brothers,
unmarried sisters and widowed mother
dependent on the deceased Government
Servant, if the deceased Government
servant was unmarried;

(v) aforementioned relations of
such missing Government servant who has
been declared as "dead" by the competent
Court;

Provided
that
if
a
person
belonging to any of the above mentioned
relations of the deceased Government
servant is not available or is found to be
physically and mentally unfit and thus
ineligible for employment in Government
service, then only in such situation the
word "family" shall also include the
grandsons
and
the
unmarried
granddaughters
of
the
deceased
Government servant dependent on him."

6. On the basis of aforesaid definition
only that unmarried sister may be included
in the definition of 'family' if her brother
3-5 All. Ram Tirath & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1803
i.e. the deceased government servant was
unmarried. However, in the present case
the deceased government servant was
married and was having two minor
daughters, therefore, present petitioner may
not be included in the definition of 'family'.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and having perused the
material available on record, I am of the
considered opinion that since the present
petitioner who is unmarried sister of the
deceased government servant who was
married when he died in harness, therefore,
she cannot be included in the definition of
'family'.

8. Accordingly no direction as prayed
in the writ petition may be issued,
therefore, the writ petition is misconceived
and is accordingly dismissed.

9. No order as to costs.

10. However, there is no need to
provide
liberty
to
the
petitioner
to
challenge the rules inasmuch as it is always
open for the aggrieved person to challenge
any rules, if he / she is aggrieved out of
those rules.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1803
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

WRIT-A No. 27362 of 2017
&
WRIT-A No. 40115 of 2017
&
WRIT-A No. 7663 of 2017
&
WRIT-A No. 5123 of 2017

Ram Tirath & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, Sri Rajiv Trivedi,
Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Ravi Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Manish Goyal

A. Service Law- Recruitment/Promotion -
Violation of principle of natural justice -
Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16, 311;
U.P. State District Court Service Rules,
2013: Schedule B, Column 2 at Serial No.
5, Rules 3(3), 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19;
U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment
Rules,
1947;
U.P.
Subordinate
Civil
Courts
Inferior
Establishment Rules, 1955; U.P. State
District Court Services (First Amendment)
Rules, 2017

Validity of Schedule B Column 2 at Serial 5
of Rules, 2013: Under Rules, 1947, there was
no provision permitting promotion of Group D
employees to Group C post but such a mode of
recruitment was provided by Government Order
dated 01.01.1970 and for promotion of Group D
employees in Group C in District Judgeships the
same was extended by this Court's Circular
dated
05.02.1973
and
since
then
till
promulgation of Rules, 2013 promotions have
been made from Group D to Group C to the
extent of 20% as and when vacancies had
occurred
following
the
manner
of
such
promotion, i.e., written examination, interview
and typing test provided in the GO dated
01.01.1970 and on.
In supercession of all the Rules framed prior to
enforcement of Rules, 2013, new set of Rules
were framed wherein also there was no
provision permitting Group D employees as one
of the course of recruitment in Group C by
considering eligible Group D employees for
promotion.
GO
dated
01.01.1970
and
subsequent GOs issued as such were not part of
Rules, 1947 or any other Rule but issued
independently
containing
own
method
of