Summary
The son of a deceased Class-IV Sweeper refused a compassionate appointment as Sweeper under Rule 5 of the U.P. Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. He claimed the Class-III post of Gram Panchayat Officer on the strength of his graduate qualification. The High Court rejected his claim. The Supreme Court followed Premlata: 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 is to be understood with reference to the post the deceased held, not the dependent's higher qualification. It held that the government communication relied on (Annexure P-1) was not a statutory rule. Because the death in 2016 was recent and the delay was not fatal, the Court directed that he be appointed as a Sweeper within eight weeks, in the peculiar facts of the case.
Issues
- Whether 'suitable employment' under Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules entitles the dependent of a deceased Class-IV employee to a Class-III post matching the dependent's qualifications.
- Whether a dependent who declined the offer of the deceased's post and litigated could still be appointed to that post.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5, Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974'Suitable employment' was read by reference to the post held by the deceased employee, following Premlata. The statutory right to the Sweeper post was enforced despite the delay caused by litigation. (¶¶ 2, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Following Premlata, 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. A dependent's superior qualification does not determine its scope. Because compassionate appointment is meant to give immediate relief to the bereaved family, this reading is reasonable. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Annexure P-1, a government communication circulating directions drawn from the High Court's decision in Prakash Agarwal, does not represent statutory rules. It cannot justify a departure from Premlata. (¶¶ 6, 8, 11)
- The death occurred in 2016, so the link between the death and the claim had not snapped. The applicant's rejection of the Sweeper post on advice, and the rounds of litigation that followed, did not involve such delay as to deprive the family of the statutory relief of appointment as a Sweeper. (¶¶ 9, 12)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur was directed to appoint the appellant as a Sweeper within eight weeks, in the peculiar facts of the case. No costs.