Summary
The Court upheld compassionate-appointment relief for the son of a tubewell operator who had been labelled part-time but, on the particular facts, occupied a regular vacancy after a proper selection process. Regular pay, interdepartmental transfers, election duties and the treatment of similarly placed dependants supported that conclusion. The decision did not rest merely on length of service or equal pay. The State’s appeal was dismissed with costs throughout, with necessary orders directed within one month.
Issues
- Whether the deceased operator’s appointment and service satisfied the Rules despite the part-time designation.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(a)(iii) and Explanation, Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974The evidence established service against a regular vacancy and appointment through the prescribed selection process on the particular facts. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9, 11)
Held
- Regular pay alone does not establish appointment against a regular vacancy; the governing distinction in Laxmi Devi was acknowledged. Here, however, a complete selection process and the appointment terms supported the finding of a regular vacancy, despite the part-time label. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9)
- The employer’s conduct over thirteen years, including transfers between departments and deployment on election duties, reinforced its treatment of the deceased as a regular employee. The Court expressly confined its conclusion to this peculiar factual setting. (¶¶ 6, 8, 10, 11)
- Compassionate appointments had been made for at least two similarly situated dependants, without a satisfactory explanation for denying the respondent comparable treatment. The High Court’s relief warranted no interference. (¶¶ 3, 12, 13)
- The State’s appeal was dismissed with costs throughout and necessary orders for the respondent were directed within one month. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed with costs throughout; necessary orders to be issued within one month.