AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is a widow of Late Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, who met with sad demise on 24.03.2016 while he was in service and serving
respondents as Bandirakshak. After his death the present petitioner, who is the widow of deceased employee, had two minor daughters left behind by
her late husband, who were completely dependent on her. To seek a compassionate appointment, it is the case of the petitioner that she had moved an
application before the competent authority on 02.07.2016 along with all her testimonials seeking to be appointed as Class-III employee, for which she
was requisitely qualified. Her case is that she ought to be appointed as Class-III employee as per Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Its further case of the petitioner that on receipt of her application for harness appointment, even the respondent no. 2 has issued the letter on
7.12.2016 calling upon her to submit her medical report, this letter too referred that it was the post of Women Bandirakshak on which he was being
considered as per the provisions contained in Jail Mahila Bandirakshak Seva Niyamawali-2011. On 10.07.2017 she was medically examined and
report was submitted by her on 10.07.2017, which was issued by C.M.S. of the Government hospital.
The petitioner for the purposes of seeking appointment as per her qualification, had filed earlier Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 2245/2017,
which was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.08.2017 directing the I.G. Prison to decide the representation to be filed by the
petitioner in compliance of direction dated 24.08.2017. It is this representation, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.09.2017.
The I.G., Prison while considering representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2017, rejected the same by referring to a Government Order No.
1162/dks-2/2002 dated 23.08.2002, which has provided that getting appointment under the harness rule as per the choice or otherwise is not a right.
Further that after getting appointment one cannot claim appointment as per choice.
Her case is that despite the fact that she was qualified for appointment on Class-III post, she has been appointed as Class-IV (Civilian) employee
but yet she has been asked to discharge the work of Bandirakshak, which carries a higher scale. May that it be, this is altogether a different issue as
whether the petitioner is entitled for the scale as admissible to Bandirakshak or not, the post on which she claims to be discharging her services she
can always agitate it in an appropriate proceedings by filing a separate Writ Petition, but, so far as the claim of appointment on the Class-III post after
having accepted the appointed of Class-IV (Civilian) Post on 24.06.2017, she cannot as a matter of right claim for that she may be appointed on
Class-III post after having accepted appointment without raising any objection because under the law as soon as the appointment is made on
compassionate ground by the respondents by the order dated 24.06.2017, the same has met with the intention and purpose of dying in Harness Rules
of 1974 to provide immediate reprieve to the family from sudden crisis of loss of sole bread earner, which intends to provide a source of subsistence to
the bereaved family so that they may survive, hence, the petitioner has got no enforceable right as such to claim a better appointment on a higher post
than to what she has already been appointed once she has accepted the appointment thus made under the rules.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Apparently, there is no error in the impugned order dated 20.09.2017. The
same is accordingly dismissed.
However, there would be no order as to cost.