On today’s show, we will talk about the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Uttam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4575/2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed a matter relating to Compassionate Appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Compassionate Appointment means appointment
granted to a dependant family member of a Government Servant who dies while
being in service, thereby leaving his family without any means of livelihood.
To relieve the family of such Government Servant from financial constraints and
emergent circumstances, Compassionate Appointment is granted to a dependant
family member.
In the present case, the father of the Respondent
was working as a Tubewell Operator and had contested legal battle for his
regularization. Further, the father of the Respondent was also drawing salary
equivalent to the regular pay scale. He died while being in service.
The Respondent approached the High Court for grant
of Compassionate Appointment as the father of the Respondent was also
transferred to different departments from time to time and it was contended by
the Respondent that transfers could not have happened if his father was not
being considered as a regular employee. It was also contended that similarly
situated persons have been granted the benefit of Compassionate Appointment and
the father of the Respondent has even been sent for performing election duties.
In this light, the Respondent was granted the benefit of Compassionate
Appointment by the High Court. According to the High Court, the selection of
the father of the Respondent was proper and against the regular vacancy.
The Appellant appealed against the Judgment of the
High Court before the Supreme Court and contended that the father of the
Respondent had not been regularized and therefore, the Respondent is not
entitled to the benefit of Compassionate Appointment. In order to understand
the matter in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by
the Supreme Court.
Firstly, the Court noted that though the father of
the Respondent was termed as a Part Time Employee, but he was always treated as
a Regular Employee. Even the appointment of the father of the Respondent was
done in accordance with the established norms and procedure.
Secondly, the Court observed 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.”
Thirdly, according to the Court, “it is
quite obvious that there is a discrimination against the Respondent possibly
arising from the previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased
father of the Respondent.”
Therefore, upon cumulative consideration, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it cannot permit the Appellate Department to
harass the Respondent without any rhyme and reason and upheld the Judgment of
the High Court. Hence, the Appeal preferred by the Department was dismissed.
That was all about the case. So, what are my
concluding remarks?
Just because an employee has been termed as a part-timer but does all the work that is done by a regular employee and is treated as such by the employer in terms of pay, transfers, deputations etc., then in such cases, the Supreme Court rightly observed that such employee ought to be treated as a regular employee and must be extended all the benefits of regular employment.
No comments:
Post a Comment