Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of compassionate appointment to the respondent, Uttam Singh, following the death of his father, who had worked with the State of Uttar Pradesh. The father had been engaged in a legal battle for his appointment as a Tubewell Operator, which was finally granted after a delay of six years. He served for 13 years until his demise on 09.03.2016. The respondent argued that he was unfairly denied the same benefits granted to others in similar situations, citing discrimination possibly linked to his father's previous litigation against the appellants. The appellants contended that the father was not a regular employee and thus the respondent was not entitled to the benefits under the compassionate appointment rules. The Supreme Court noted that the father had been treated as a regular employee, having been transferred between departments and appointed for election duties, which could only be performed by a government employee. The court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the father's appointment was against a regular vacancy, and thus the respondent was entitled to the benefits of the Rules. The appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that necessary orders be issued for the respondent within one month.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, Rule 2(a)(iii) - The court held that the respondent's father, despite being termed a Part Time tubewell operator, was treated as a regular employee and thus the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment under the Rules. The High Court's finding that the appointment was against a regular vacancy was upheld (Paras 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's finding that the respondent's father was treated as a regular employee and thus the respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The court ordered that necessary orders be issued for the respondent within one month.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Government servant definition
- Equal pay for equal work
- Regular vacancy
- Discrimination in employment
