THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus UTTAM SINGH

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 03-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
UTTAM SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 4575 of 2021)
AUGUST 03, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law: Compassionate appointment – By impugned
order of High Court, respondent was granted benefit of
compassionate appointment on account of demise of his father who
was working with the appellants – Challenged by appellant-
Department on the ground that father of respondent was not regular
employee and was merely granted equivalent benefits on the principle
of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and therefore, respondent was not
entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment – Held: There
is no error in the view of High Court that the appointment of father
of respondent was against the regular vacancy though it continued
to be termed as a ‘Part Time’ appointment apart from the fact that
his work hours were of a regular employee entitling  him to equal
pay for equal work – During his 13 long years of employment and
before that having battled the appellants for 6 years to get his dues,
the deceased employee was also transferred from one department
to the other, normally an aspect which would be associated with a
person who had a regular employment – The most significant aspect
was that had the deceased employee not been considered a regular
appointee, there would have been no occasion for the Department
to volunteer his services to the State Election Commission to perform
election duties, which is done only by a Government employee, as
is specified under s.159 of the Representation of the People Act,
1950 – Further, at least two persons were employed in a similar
scenario whose father and husband respectively died in harness as
Part Time tubewell operators – It is apparent that there is an
discrimination against the respondent possibly arising from the
previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased father
of the respondent – There is no satisfactory explanation for the
same – No interference with the order of High Court called for.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 345
345
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High court noted the contention that though
the father of the respondent was termed as a Part Time tubewell
operator but he was always treated as a regular employee. The
order of appointment in the case of the father of the respondent
was found to be unambiguous in its terms in accordance with
norms after verification of all his certificates. A complete process
of selection was conducted by the appellants as the employer.  At
the first instance, appointment was denied to him on account of
he not being a resident of the command area of the tubewell
concerned but this ground was found unsustainable by the judicial
view taken by the High Court by an earlier order dated 29.01.2003
and consequently the father of the respondent was appointed. It
is in these given facts of the case that it has been found that the
benefit should be made available to the respondent under the
Rules. The facts have been found sufficient by the High Court to
come to the conclusion that the appointment of the father of the
respondent was against a regular vacancy and that is why in that
background from the inception regular pay-scale was allowed to
him and he thus satisfied the parameters of the Rules aforesaid.
[Para 8][350-B-F]
2. During his 13 long years of employment and before that
having battled the appellants for the period of 6 years to get his
dues, the father of the respondent was also transferred from one
department to the other, normally an aspect which would be
associated with a person who had a regular employment. The
most significant aspect is that had the father of the respondent
not been considered a regular appointee, there would be no
occasion for the Department to volunteer his services to the State
Election Commission to perform election duties, which could have
been done  only by a Government employee, as is specified under
Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (“Staff
of certain authorities  to be made available for election work”).
The present case is thus one which is peculiar in its given factual
scenario which for all practical purposes, it is a case of an
appointment against a regular vacancy. The respondent’s father
was treated as a regular employee by the aforesaid conduct of
the appellants even though he was labelled as a Part Time
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
347
tubewell operator

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