D.K. Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 02 of 2010 and the order dated 29.07.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 732 of 2009 by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition, are that the opposite party No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to consider the claimant as a regular employee of the department and to provide her all service benefits etc. alongwith the benefit of VIth Pay Commission like regular employee of the department. From perusal of record, it reveals that the opposite party No. 1 filed claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal thereby claiming that her husband Sri Rashid Ali was employed as Helper in the Public Works Department and he died in harness on 13.02.2000 after putting 18 years of continuous service and she being the dependent of the deceased was given appointment under Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 and, as such, her appointment is deemed to be a regular appointment.
(3.) IT is also submitted that ever since from the date of her appointment i.e. 10.03.2000 she is regularly working with the department but her services have not been regularized and she has also been deprived of all the service benefits admissible to a regular employee. The claim petition was opposed by the petitioners by filing a written statement, in which it has been stated that the claimant/ opposite party No. 1 was not appointed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 (here -in -after referred to as the Rules, 1974). The deceased husband of the claimant/opposite party No. 1 was not a regular employee of the Public Works Department. He was appointed as Helper on daily wages basis in the work charge establishment and since her husband was not a regular employee of the department, as such, the claimant/opposite party No. 1 was not covered under the definition of public servant and, therefore, the provisions of Rules, 1974 were not attracted. It is also stated that since the claimant/ opposite party No. 1 was not appointed under Rules, 1974, as such, she cannot be treated to have been appointed on a regular post or against the supernumerary post. Therefore, she cannot be granted regular salary or the benefit of VIth Pay Commission.;