Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others vs Smt. Suman Singh and Another

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Appellants have approached this Court against the order dated 04.09.2008 whereby the writ Petition filed by the Respondent No. 1-Smt. Suman Singh, widow of a deceased work charge employee, has been allowed.

The husband of the Respondent No. 1 was working in the establishment of the Appellant No. 1-Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Lucknow as a work charge employee. He expired on 2nd February, 1996. The Respondent No. 1 applied for appointment under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Governments of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, which are stated to be applicable to the Mandi Parishad and the learned single Judge noticed the said fact that was not disputed on behalf of the Appellant No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 28.09.1996 on compassionate grounds as a work charge employee.

It appears that the Appellant No. 1 between the period 01.04.1996 to 30.10.1997 also appointed a large number of employees either on temporary or on work charge basis. The State Government passed an order directing for termination of all these appointments. The appointments of all 1021 employees were terminated. Thereafter writ Petition had been filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court by such employees who were terminated but the Respondent No. 1 was not a party therein. The Lucknow Bench of this Court allowed the said writ Petitions against which the Appellant No. 1 moved SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the same, which is now reported as State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Others,

Subsequent to this the order came to be passed on 2nd February, 2006 terminating the services of the employees including the Respondent No. 1 who filed a writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 20630 of 2006, which came to be allowed by the order of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2008. This order is subject matter of the present special appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the services of the Respondent No. 1 were terminated in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Awasthi (supra). It is also submitted that there was no post available to appoint the Respondent No. 1.

The issue raised in the case of Neeraj Awasthi (supra) was in respect of those employees who were recruited by the Appellants without there being any post on a large scale basis. It is thus those matters which were the subject of the appeal before the Apex Court. It is no doubt true that the Apex Court has passed an order directing that those employees, who were appointed between 01.04.1996 to 30.10.1997 be terminated.

In the instant case we find the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on compassionate basis. Her request was considered and she was appointed on work charge basis by order dated 8th September, 1996. She has worked for 10 years.

In the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. K.P. Tiwari, the Supreme Court has held that an employee is continued for a long time normally such an appointment should not be interfered with.

Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court and considering the case of the Respondent No. 1, who is a widow, in our opinion this is not a fit case for interfering with the order of the learned single Judge.

Our attention was also invited to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (8) ADJ 664 (FB) to contend that a dependant of a person holding the post of work charge employee was not entitled to compassionate appointment. The judgment is binding. In this case, the Respondent No. 1 has been continued on only work charge basis. Hence the Full Bench decision is not applicable as it relates to regular compassionate appointment.

We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the Appellants as to whether there was no work available, but neither anything on record nor any other specific averment is made that there is no work available.

In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.