Appointments Made Under Dying-In-Harness Rules Are 'Permanent' In Nature: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated its earlier stand that the appointment made under the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature.The bench comprising of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 “being statutory Rules, nowhere provide that the compassionate appointment of an appointee is temporary...
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated its earlier stand that the appointment made under the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is permanent in nature.
The bench comprising of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 “being statutory Rules, nowhere provide that the compassionate appointment of an appointee is temporary in nature.”
The petitioner's father died in harness. A supernumerary post was created and the petitioner was offered a compassionate appointment. After three years of working on the said post, the petitioner's services were terminated in view of UP Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975. It was stated in view of the Rules of 1975, that the services of the petitioner were no longer required. The termination order was challenged before the writ court.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's appointment was substantive in nature as it was given on compassionate grounds. Hence, it could not be treated as temporary employment.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that in the letter for appointment, it was mentioned that the appointment was temporary in nature and could be terminated without prior intimation. It was also argued that since the petitioner has passed away, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. It was also submitted that the order was passed after serving a show cause notice on the petitioner.
It was also argued that in 2001, when the writ petition was filed, the Court had stayed the termination order and the petitioner's father had continued to work till his death in 2020. Even though the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2018, the deceased had continued to work. When the wife of the deceased applied for a compassionate appointment, it was stated that her application could not be decided due to the pendency of the writ petition.
The Court held that merely because “temporary” was mentioned in the appointment letter of the deceased will not render his appointment temporary in the absence of any provision in the 1974 Rules declaring compassionate appointment as temporary in nature.
The Court relied on Ravi Karan Singh vs. State of UP & ors, wherein the Allahabad High Court had held that “the appointment under dying-in-harness rules is of permanent nature.” The same was upheld by the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjai Kumar v. Deputy Director General (NCC) Directorate, U.P. Lucknow & ors.
Accordingly, the termination order of the deceased was set aside. The respondent authorities were directed to consider the claim of the wife of the deceased for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs. Ziladhikari Distt. Mainpuri And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 491 [WRIT - A No. - 6119 of 2001]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 491