# Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1460 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-12-15 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25314 of 2007 - **Bench:** Sunil Hali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42079 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Servants(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974Rule-2 (2)-Compassionate appointmentfather of petitioner working as part time Tube-well operator-died in harnessappointment refused on ground of regularization of his father was rejected being appointed after cut off date-not entitled-for appointment-definitions given under rule 2(2)-no where provides the appointment should be permanent/regular basis-held-entitled for appointment. Held: Para 6 Rules no where provides that the benefit is to be accorded to the persons who are permanently appointed. The rules provide that even persons who are appointed on temporary basis and are continuously working are also entitled to the benefit. The intended purpose of the Rules is to provide succor to the family of the deceased who died in harness. It is the continuous relationship of master and servant which gives benefit to the employee seeking such benefit. There must be an element of continuity then the benefit is to be conferred to the person who has been appointed even temporarily. The continuity of a person for a longer period of time clearly gives a message that his services is required by the State. The status of the employee in that behalf could not be relevant. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51469 of 2005 (Vijay Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. and others). ## Text 1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 13. In view of the above facts and discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The termination order dated 26.12.1993 passed by the respondent no. 3, Commandant 8th Battalion, P. A. C., Bareilly as well as the appellate and revision orders dated 23.9.1994 and 30.1.1995 passed by the respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits as admissible to him under law. 14. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNIL HALI,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25314 of 2007 Vinod Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.K. Singh Sri V.K. Singh Sri K.R. Singh Sri U.C. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Govt. Servants(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974Rule-2 (2)-Compassionate appointmentfather of petitioner working as part time Tube-well operator-died in harnessappointment refused on ground of regularization of his father was rejected being appointed after cut off date-not entitled-for appointment-definitions given under rule 2(2)-no where provides the appointment should be permanent/regular basis-held-entitled for appointment. Held: Para 6 Rules no where provides that the benefit is to be accorded to the persons who are permanently appointed. The rules provide that even persons who are appointed on temporary basis and are continuously working are also entitled to the benefit. The intended purpose of the Rules is to provide succor to the family of the deceased who died in harness. It is the continuous relationship of master and servant which gives benefit to the employee seeking such benefit. There must be an element of continuity then the benefit is to be conferred to the person who has been appointed even temporarily. The continuity of a person for a longer period of time clearly gives a message that his services is required by the State. The status of the employee in that behalf could not be relevant. Case law discussed: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51469 of 2005 (Vijay Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. and others). (Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J. ) 1. Petitioner's father was appointed as Part-time Tube Well Operator on 26.3.1987 and was paid salary @ Rs. 299/- per month. The salary of the petitioner' father was fixed in the pay scale of rs. 950-1500/- with effect from 18.5.1994 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.1.1996 his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. He continuously worked on the said post without any break. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's father was working in clear vacancy even though on temporary basis 3 All] Vinod Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1461 for more than 19 years. Petitioner's father is stated to have died on 19.9.2006. After death of his father, petitioner moved an application before the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Jaunpur seeking employment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the deceased was not a regular employee of the department and as such, the benefit of the aforesaid rules can not be given to him. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Rule 2(2) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is quoted below :- 2. Definitions :- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires : (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 (ii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment." Sub-rule (ii) of the aforesaid Rules contemplates that a person would be Government servant if he is regularly appointed even temporary. The case of the petitioner is that his father has continuously worked on the aforesaid post right from the year 1987, even though his services had not been regularized in terms of the rules of 1996. His case for regularisation of services was rejected on account of the fact that he was appointed after the cut-off date provided. 5. The stand of the respondent is that only the regular person appointed substantively whose legal heirs are entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid Rules. 6. Rules no where provides that the benefit is to be accorded to the persons who are permanently appointed. The rules provide that even persons who are appointed on temporary basis and are continuously working are also entitled to the benefit. The intended purpose of the Rules is to provide succor to the family of the deceased who died in harness. It is the continuous relationship of master and servant which gives benefit to the employee seeking such benefit. There must be an element of continuity then the benefit is to be conferred to the person who has been appointed even temporarily. The continuity of a person for a longer period of time clearly gives a message that his services is required by the State. The status of the employee in that behalf could not be relevant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51469 of 2005 (Vijay Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. and others). 1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 7.2.2007 and 23.2.2007 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively and respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and appoint him on compassionate ground under the aforesaid Rules of 1974 provided he is eligible under the Rules to hold the post. Let this process be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35299 of 2005 Totaram and others ...Petitioners Versus Asst. Comm. Saharanpur Division & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajiv Gupta Sri V.C. Misra Sri H.B. Singh Sri Vivek Misra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C Constitution of India, Article 226cancellation of supply-fair price dealerchallenged prior cancellation of supply no opportunity given-mere lodging F.I.R. Can not be ground for cancellationlicense of petitioner neither suspended nor canceled-petitioner by producing forged receipt succeeded to get supplyeven if ready to deposit said amountsupply can not be restored-fraud vitiate every thing-principle of Natural Justice can not be evoked who guilty of playing fraud-moreover can approach before S.D.O.-who consider the defence and take appropriate decision-petition disposed of. Held: Para 25 Therefore, while upholding the imputation in the impugned order to that extent it is held that stopping the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner was not an act which was required to be done only under a power conferred but because there was fraud committed by the petitioner hence the doctrine or principle 'fraud vitiates the most solemn act' came into play and the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order cannot be held to be against law or guidelines as contained in the government order. Case law discussed: 2011 (3) AWC 3180; 2009 All.C.J. 335; 2007 (1) AWC 54; 2001 (1) ALJ 332; 2004 All.C.J. 208 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J. ) 1. Heard V.C. Misra, learned senior counsel alongwith Sri Haribansh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.08.2000 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) passed by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffar Nagar as also the order dated 12.04.2005 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Food) on the appeal/representation No.66 of 2005 made by the petitioner.