Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and are almost adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 43653 of 1999 allowed on 9.10.2006. The said writ petition had been filed by the petitioner questioning the correctness of the order of the State Government dated 16.9.1999 whereby her claim of compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules had been turned down on the ground that the petitioner''s husband died in harness while working as a part-time Tube-well Operator.

The aforesaid issue was dealt with in detail in the said judgment and on fact pleaded it was found that the petitioner''s husband was also amongst those part-time Tube-well Operators, who had contested the matter in relation to their regularisation up to the Apex Court and the State Government had lost the battle. Immediately before the policy of regularisation, which was promulgated under the Government Order dated 16.12.1996, the petitioner''s husband died on 4.11.1996 which was in very close proximity to the issuance of the said Government Order. The Writ Petition was, therefore, allowed holding that the status of the petitioner''s husband changed and he became entitled to be treated as a regular Tube-well Operator or in other words akin to a regular Tube-well Operator. The aforesaid judgment has not been assailed and has become final between the parties. The order of the State Government refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner dated 16.9.1999 was quashed and the authority was directed to pass an appropriate order in the light of the observations made therein.

The respondents have proceeded to now pass the order on 31.1.2007 which has given rise to the writ petition whereby they have held that since the Government Order in relation to the regularisation of Tube-well Operators was promulgated on 16.12.1996 and that the petitioner''s husband was already dead at that time, therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner.

A counter-affidavit has been filed reiterating the same stand as indicated in the impugned order with a prayer that the writ petition be dismissed and the claim of the petitioner be rejected.

This Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order on 12.2.2007 staying the operation of the said order.

It is to be noted that when the petitioner had earlier come up before this Court in the year 1999, she had already been offered appointment as a Peon on 28.4.1998 and the same was cancelled on 16.9.1999. The said cancellation order had been stayed and by virtue of the interim order passed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner continued in service thereafter. The petition was ultimately allowed in the year 2006. The petitioner, therefore, continued in service and in view of the interim order passed in this case on 20.2.2007, the petitioner still continues to retain her services.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that in this case a judicial intervention had taken place on the same issue before this Court after the issuance of the Government Order of December 1996. The same argument had been advanced and this Court in its judgment dated 9.10.2006 had left nothing to be adjudicated by the opposite parties in relation to the status of the employment of the petitioner''s late husband. To that extent, the said judgment operates as res judicata against the respondents and even otherwise the aforesaid claim having been finalized by this Court, would be covered by the Doctrine of finality. The respondents, not having challenged the order dated 9.10.2006, were bound to respect the same and treat the claim of the petitioner to be valid as if the petitioner''s husband was a regular appointee and his dependents were entitled to the benefit of 1974 Rules. In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.1.2007, being unsustainable, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be treated to have been validly appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.