SUNEEL KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 02-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
SUNEEL KUMAR
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2022)
AUGUST 02, 2022
 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 – Rule 5 – Compassionate
appointment – When superior qualification is held by the dependent
– The father of the appellant was working as class-IV employee
(sweeper) and passed away – Appellant, a graduate with computer
literacy, was offered post of sweeper but he rejected the same and
requested to be appointed as Gram Panchayat officer (Class-III
post) with reference to the qualification he had – Respondent rejected
the said request on their understanding of the words “suitable
employement” in Rule 5 – High Court rejected the writ petition of
the appellant – Appellant approached the Supreme Court – Held:
The words “suitable employment” in Rule 5 must be understood
with reference to the post held by the deceased employee – The
superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the
scope of the words “suitable employment” – The alternate submission
of the appellant to be appointed as sweeper was accepted as it is a
right under the statutory rule.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The question relating to the entitlement as it were
of the appellant to be considered to the post of Gram Panchayat
Officer is concerned, it is without doubt a post borne in Class-
III. The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne
in Class-IV post. This court have noticed the view taken in the
case of Premlata. In other words, the law as declared is to the
effect that the words “suitable employment” in Rule 5 must be
understood with reference to the post held by the deceased
employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot
determine the scope of the words “suitable employment”. [Para
10][120-F-G]
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 114
114
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
2. This court must consider the case of the appellant for
appointment as a Sweeper at least. It may be true that the
appellant may have been on the advice given persuaded to litigate
the matter and persevere in his claim for a specific post. It may
be true that there were rounds of litigation but as we have already
noticed bearing in mind the date of the death of the employee,
the claim of the appellant may not be said to be afflicted with such
delay as should deprive him and the family of the deceased of
relief of the appellant being appointed as a Sweeper, a right which
is given under the statutory Rule. [Para 12][121-B-C]
State of Uttar Pradesh And Others v. Premlata (2022) 1
SCC 30 : 2021 (10) JT 28 – relied on.
Prakash Agarwal v. Registrar General W.P.(C) No.
2228 (SS) 2014; State of Himachal Pradesh and
Another v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 : [2019] 2
SCR 432 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 2 SCR 432
referred to
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5038
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective No. 1131 of
2019.
Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Pankaj Pandey, Girish Tripathi, Mrs. Pragya
Baghel, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The father of the appellant who was working as Class-IV
employee (Sweeper) at the Office of Vikas Khand Khutam, Jaunpur,
U.P., passed away on 23.11.2016. An application came to be made by
the appellant for being appointed under Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh
SUNEEL KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1974’). Rule 5
reads as follows:-
“[5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.-(1)
In case a Government servant dies in harness after the
commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased
Government servant is not already employed under the Central
Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or
controlled by the Central Government or a State Government,
one member of his family who is not already employed under the
Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation
owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State
Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be
given a suitable employmen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.