# Pramod Kumar Dixit 3125(S/S) 2012 v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 793 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2014-07-23 - **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 387 of 2014 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Arvind Kumar Tripathi (Ii - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-dixit-3125-s-s-2012-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42979 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Rules, 1974- Compassionate appointment on class 4th post given-subsequentlyrevoked and recovery of salary on ground-as her husband was work charge employee-can not given regular appointment-held-Single Judge rightly quashed full Bench will not came in way already appointed-Appeal dismissed. Held: Para-6 Any appointment made under the Dying in Harness Rules can only be on a permanent post and not on temporary or work charge post. That being the position, the option exercised by the State in down-grading the appointment of the petitioner from that of a permanent class IV employee to a work charge employee and also a direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to the writ-petitioner cannot be justified in law. Case Law discussed: (2010) 4 UPLBEC 2633 ## Text 2 All] Pramod Kumar Dixit 3125 (S/S) 2012 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 793 9. The application is, therefore, rejected. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.07.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J. Special Appeal Defective No. 387 of 2014 Pramod Kumar Dixit 3125(S/S) 2012 ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.K. Verma Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Police Regulation-Regulation 505Resignation-when accepted within 2 month from tender-whether bad-held-'No'. Held: Para-6 It is thus clear that the authority is empowered to accept a resignation even prior to the expiry of the period of two months. We therefore in addition to the reasons given by the learned Single Judge uphold the judgment for the conclusions drawn hereinabove. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal after having condoned the delay. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged two points. Firstly, that the resignation tendered by the appellant was not voluntarily and secondly there is a provision namely Regulation 505 of the U.P. Police Regulations which mandates that the personnel against whom any enquiry is pending shall not be permitted to resign. 3. Having considered the submissions raised as well as having gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded the following finding in Paragraph 13:- "13.Sequence of events noticed above clearly indicates that the petitioner submitted his resignation letter on 16th of February, 2005. An enquiry was held as to whether resignation was voluntary, or not. Concerned Circle Officer reported that resignation letter furnished by the petitioner was a result of voluntary act. On verification of the said fact, vide order dated 24th of February, 2005, resignation of the petitioner was accepted w.e.f. 28th of February, 2005." 4. This recital in the judgment could not be successfully assailed nor any such ground has been taken that the recital of the facts as noted by the learned Single Judge suffers from any infirmity against records. Consequently, the resignation was given voluntarily as recorded by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any material so as to differ from the said view. 5. The second submission raised by the learned counsel is not legally tenable, inasmuch as, the option in relation to the employee does not bar the authority from accepting the resignation in terms of the proviso to Regulation 505. The law is settled by this court in the case of Ram Dhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 88 of 2004 decided on 18th July, 2012 where this court has held as under:- 794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ".............However, the first proviso to the said provision permits the authority to accept the resignation even prior to the date of expiry of the notice, i.e. two months. In the case in hand, the resignation has been accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Research, Policy Planning, Rules and Manuals, U.P., Lucknow under whose establishment the appellant was working as Constable before expiry of two months..............." 6. It is thus clear that the authority is empowered to accept a resignation even prior to the expiry of the period of two months. We therefore in addition to the reasons given by the learned Single Judge uphold the judgment for the conclusions drawn hereinabove. 7. There is no merit in this appeal and is hereby dismissed. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Special Appeal No. 621 of 2014 State of U.P. & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Smt. Pushpa Devi ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.K. Roy, S.C. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.K. Tripathi, Sri Manish Pandey Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974- Compassionate appointment on class 4th post given-subsequentlyrevoked and recovery of salary on ground-as her husband was work charge employee-can not given regular appointment-held-Single Judge rightly quashed full Bench will not came in way already appointed-Appeal dismissed. Held: Para-6 Any appointment made under the Dying in Harness Rules can only be on a permanent post and not on temporary or work charge post. That being the position, the option exercised by the State in down-grading the appointment of the petitioner from that of a permanent class IV employee to a work charge employee and also a direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to the writ-petitioner cannot be justified in law. Case Law discussed: (2010) 4 UPLBEC 2633 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.) 1. In brief the facts of this case are that the husband of the sole respondentwrit petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi was an employee of the Public Works Department who died in harness on 30.6.1991. The respondent-writ petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the "Dying in Harness Rules"). On her application, she was given appointment on 24.4.1993 as a permanent class IV employee. By order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner was downgraded from that of a permanent employee to a work charge employee on the ground that her husband was a work charge employee, and not a permanent employee. Further, recovery of the difference of salary from the date of initial appointment i.e. 24.4.1993 till the