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 ClassIII. 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]
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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.