caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Uttam Singh on 3 August, 2021Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy
1
.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4575/2021
[arising out of SLP (C) NO.20650/2019]
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UTTAM SINGH Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.
1. The appellants seek to assail the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in terms whereof
the respondent before us has been granted the benefit of
compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Rules”) on account of demise of his father, who was working
with the appellants.
2. The father of the respondent had earlier waged a legal
battle against the appellant-Department arising out of his
endeavour to get his appointment post his selection for the
post of Tubewell Operator. The High Court in the impugned
order opined that the selection process of the father of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet kaur
the
Date: 2021.08.05
17:33:17 IST
Reason:
respondent was unambiguous and against the regular
vacancy whereby he had submitted all the requisite
2
documents to the Irrigation Department. The case of the
respondent is that the appellants held up this issue over
six years and the actual appointment took place only on
29.01.2003. The respondent’s father continued to work and
draw emoluments for a period of 13 years equivalent to the
regular pay-scale till he unfortunately passed away on
09.03.2016.
3. The case of the respondent is also that in identical
matters, the appellants have appointed one Balram and one
Smt. Geeta Devi, whose father and husband respectively died
in harness, as Part Time Tubewell Operators and many other
candidates of whose record is not available. The
respondent argues that he was singled out in being denied
the benefit possibly on account of the earlier litigation
between the father of the respondent and the appellant-
Department.
4. The case of the appellants is that the father of the
respondent had not been regularized and merely grant of
equivalent benefits on the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ would not make him regular employee and thus
the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the Rules
for compassionate employment. In this behalf reference is
made to the judgment of this Court in Gen. Manager,
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors. (2009) 7 SCC
205 stated to be dealing with the very Rule in question.
It will be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of the
3
Rules where Rule 2 (a)(iii) reads as under :
“ 2.Definitions-
….
(a) Government servant” means a
Government employed in connection
with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh
who-
(i) xxxxx
(ii) Xxxxx
(iii) though not regularly appointment,
had put in three years
continuous service in regular
vacancy in such employment;
Explanation- “regularly appointed” means
appointed in accordance with the procedure
laid down for recruitment to the post of
service, as the case may be;”
5. Thus the respondent contends that since his father was
employed for more than 3 years in continuous service, he
was bound to be considered as a Government Servant and thus
the benefit should extend to the respondent. On the other
hand, relying upon the aforesaid judgment where the same
Rules have been analyzed, learned Senior counsel for the
appellants seeks to contend that this Court opined that a
person not regularly appointed but who had otherwise put in
3 years continuous service in a regular vacancy cannot mean
to imply that a Daily Wager would get the benefit of the
Rule. We may, however, note that the Court had opined on
the facts of that case holding that benefit would not
4
accrue to the respondent. The regular vacancy was held to
mean a vacancy which occurred in posts sanctioned by the
competent authority. The service of the deceased employee
had not actually been regularized though they have claimed
regularization. The fact that the deceased employee was
drawing salary in a regular pay-scale was held not to mean
that they are against a regular vacancy.
6. We may note an interesting aspect pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondent, inter alia, in his
synopsis (as usual the appellants did not consider it
appropriate to assist this Court by filing a synopsis as
had been directed vide the last order, apart from the note
on the cause list!). The respondent has stated that during
the period of 13 years of the employment of the father of
the respondent, he was transferred from the Irrigation
Department to Panchayati Raj Department as ‘Gram Panchayat
Vikas Adhikari’ and vice versa, i.e, he was transferred 2
or 3 times by the appellants and was even appointed as a
polling officer by State Election Commission on 15.10.2015,
26.11.2015 and 03.12.2015. It is thus the submission that
there could not have been such inter-departmental transfers
and re-transfers if the father of the respondent was not
being considered as a regular employee. Not only that, it
is contended that there would possibly be no case where a
person is deployed under the Representation of People Act,
5
1951, who is not a Government employee. This is apart from
the fact that the respondent’s father was the operator of 2
Government tubewells which was stated to be equivalent to
the job of a regular tubewell operator i.e., a 9 a.m. to
5. P.m., which some times ran over more than 8 hours,
subject to the demand of farmers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants however gives an
explanation by stating that these persons were originally
deployed as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, transferred and
re-transferred back and the challenge to the same was
repelled in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari vs Daya Ram Saroj
& Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 138.
8. If we turn to the impugned order of the Division
Bench, the High Court has taken note of the Full Bench of
the Allahabad High Court which is in consonance with the
view propounded by this Court in the case of Gen. Manager,
Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors, (2009) 7 SCC
205 (supra)1. However, it noted the contention that though
the father of the respondent was termed as a Part Time
tubewell operator but he was always treated as a regular
employee. The Court took note of the rule referred to
aforesaid and the explanation given thereto which requires
that an appointment with procedure laid down for
recruitment to the post or the service. The order of
appointment in the case of the father of the respondent has
1 Pavan Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 18 ADJ 664
6
been found to be unambiguous in its terms in accordance
with norms after verification of all his certificates. A
complete process of selection was conducted by the
appellants as the employer. At the first instance,
appointment was denied to him on account of he not being a
resident of the command area of the tubewell concerned but
this ground was found unsustainable by the judicial view
taken by the High Court by an earlier order dated
29.01.2003 and consequently the father of the respondent
was appointed. It is in these given facts of the case that
it has been found that the benefit should be made available
to the respondent under the Rules. The facts have been
found sufficient by the High Court to come to the
conclusion that the appointment of the father of the
respondent was against a regular vacancy and that is why in
that background from the inception regular pay-scale was
allowed to him and he thus satisfied the parameters of the
Rules aforesaid.
9. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court in the given factual scenario. We may say,
it appears that the appellants, for reasons best known to
them, endeavoured to deny the father of the respondent his
dues even though the appointment was through a proper
process. The High Court opined against the manner in which
the father of the respondent was denied employment. That
is the reason that from the very inception he was given the
7
benefits of a regular employee while designating him as a
Part Time tubewell operator. The High Court has found that
these facts show that the appointment was against the
regular vacancy though it continued to be termed as a ‘Part
Time’ appointment apart from the fact that his work hours
were of a regular employee entitling him to equal pay for
equal work.
10. We have also taken note of the fact that during his 13
long years of employment and before that having battled the
appellants for the period of 6 years to get his dues, the
father of the respondent was also transferred from one
department to the other, normally an aspect which would be
associated with a person who had a regular employment. The
most significant aspect is that had the father of the
respondent not been considered a regular appointee, there
would be no occasion for the Department to volunteer his
services to the State Election Commission to perform
election duties, which could have been done only by a
Government employee, as is specified under Section 159 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“Staff of
certain authorities to be made available for election
work”).
11. The present case is thus one which is peculiar in its
given factual scenario which we have discussed above and
thus for all practical purposes, it is a case of an
appointment against a regular vacancy. The respondent’s
8
father was treated as a regular employee by the aforesaid
conduct of the appellants even though he was labelled as a
Part Time tubewell operator.
12. We may like to further say that from the illustrations
given by the appellants, at least 2 persons, as noted
before, were employed in a similar scenario i.e., Balram
and Smt. Geeta Devi whose father and husband respectively
died in harness as Part Time tubewell operators. It is
quite obvious that there is an discrimination against the
respondent possibly arising from the previous litigation
between the appellants and the deceased father of the
respondent. There is no satisfactory explanation for the
same and we cannot permit the appellant-Department to
harass the respondent in this manner.
13. We are thus of the opinion that the course adopted by
the Division Bench of the High Court is in accordance with
law and the impugned order does not call for any
interference.
14. The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.
15. The necessary orders be issued in the case of the
respondent within one month from date the order.
………………………………………..J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
………………………………………..J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 03, 2021.
Comments