YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.S. Singh Visen who has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
(2.) On 17 July 2017 when the writ petition was taken up, the following orders came to be passed by the Court: "This petition has sought a direction for treating the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Conductor as a substantive appointment and for the release of all consequential benefits. From a perusal of the record it appears that although the father of the petitioner had died in 2001, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as a Conductor in 2010. This contractual engagement raises certain issues which would warrant the filing of a further affidavit by the Corporation before this writ petition is disposed of finally. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation does not dispute the fact that the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules 1974 applies. It is settled law that an appointment on compassionate basis is of a permanent character subject to the fulfilment of other formalities including undergoing the period of probation if any. The 1974 Rules do not envisage an appointment on contract basis. The third respondent, therefore, by his personal affidavit shall explain to this Court the circumstances under which the petitioner was compelled to accept appointment on contract basis. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a Government Order dated 11 July 2003 to contend that there was a ban on the making of compassionate appointments. This the Court notes, although in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it is asserted that there is no such ban. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation states that this is a mistake in the affidavit. Assuming it to be so, the Regional Manager in his personal affidavit shall also state whether any appointments on compassionate grounds has been made after 2003 and if so give details thereof including justification for such appointments, while the petitioner was engaged only on contract basis. This personal affidavit of the Regional Manager shall be filed on or before 11 August 2017. List on the said date."
(3.) Pursuant to the said order, the Regional Manager in the respondent Corporation has filed his affidavit on 6 August 2017. As per the disclosure made in the said affidavit, it is stated that the mother of the petitioner was not granted appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the fact that she did not possess the minimum qualification. The affidavit then refers to a ban which was imposed by Government Orders dated 17 April 2002 and 11 July 2003. It further refers to subsequent Government Orders issued in 2005, 2010 and 2016 to submit that pursuant to the permissions granted by the State Government, appointments were made on compassionate grounds. An additional plea which is taken by the Corporation and as stands reflected in paragraph 3 of the affidavit is that since the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds nine years after the death of the father, no appointment could have been made in his favour in light of "Rule 5 (3)" of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules 1974. Along with the affidavit the respondents have also filed a chart of appointments made on compassionate grounds. From the disclosure made therein, it appears that as many as 159 appointments on compassionate grounds have been made by the Corporation.;