- (1.) I. R. Vasishth, J. The petitioner is a dependant widow of one Munna Lal Prajapati who died in harness on 17-11-1994 while working on the workcharge estab lishment under the respondents she seeks employment on compassionate ground in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
(2.) IT was averred that the petitioner's deceased husband Munna Lal after having put in more than ten years satisfactory ser vice as a daily rated helper under the respon dents was taken on the rolls of work charge establishment in regular pay scale with ef fect from 1-8-1989 against a substantive vacancy. He died in harness on 17-11-1994 during his posting in the office of the Ex ecuting Engineer, Construction Division, P. W. D. , Lucknow leaving behind two minor unmarried daughters, a minor son and a married daughter besides the petitioner widow. The family had no source of sus tenance and the petitioner was feeling great difficulties in coping with the hard life and bringing up the minor children including two unmarried daughters. She, therefore, approached the respondents for appoint ment in Class IV service on the ground of compassion as permissible under the rules. IT was contended that even though some vacancies were available, yet the respon dents did not exceed to her request and as such she had no alternative except to seek the intervention of the writ Court for the appropriate directions by way of a man damus to the respondents for her appoint ment on some class IVth assignment. The respondents resisted the peti tion primarily on the ground that the deceased Munna Lal was only a work-charge non-regular employee and as such could not be treated as a regular Govern ment servant whose dependents could be accorded the benefit of the rules for com-passionatary employment. There was no categorical denial of his having put in ten years service as a daily rated helper in the Class IV On the other hand in para 4 of the counter, it was admitted that initially he was engaged in construction Division I on daily wages, brought on muster roll and after wards appointed in work-charge estab lishment with effect from 1-8-1989, but it was categorically denied that he was ap pointed against a substantive vacancy or al lowed to draw the total amount of salary as permissible to regular employees. It was thus contended that since the petitioner was not covered under the rules, therefore, she had no justifiable right for compassionatory employment. Of course, at one stage, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, she was considered for appointment on the regular post but not found suitable. The petitioner's relationship with the deceased is not denied. Similarly it stands uncontroverted that she has two small dependant-minor daughters and a minor son with no source of sustenance and her husband died in harness while working on the work-charge establishment under the respondent at least since 1-8-1989; prior to that he had put in almost ten years of service as a daily rated helper.
(3.) THE only point for consideration before this Court therefore, is as to whether the petitioner could claim the benefit of the rules despite being outside the purview of her husband's regular Government employ ment. THE learned Standing Counsel relied on Government Circular dated 11-8-1993 contained in Annexure C. A. 3 which clarified that the expenses of the work-charge establishment were not to be put under the head of salaries of the regular employees because they were not to be treated as regular Government employees and were thus not entitled for the benefit of the rules with regard to employment of their dependents in case of dying in harness. It was in the light of said circular that the petitioner's representation for considera tion of employment on the regular estab lishment in pursuance to an interim order of this Court was declined by the department vide order dated 16-11- 1995 contained in Annexure C. A. 4. Taken to the logical end, thesubmission of the learned counsel would show that the Government circular for categorising the expenses of the work charge employees as a fiscal arrangement and the department's decision on petitioner's representation for employ ments infallible. THE court is not impressed with the endeavour because the issue of applicability of the rules has to be taken in the totality of the material rather than iso lated or casual interpretation thereof by the department or some interim arrangement for placing the expenses of the estab lishment under a particular head. Along with her rejoinder, the petitioner filed a Government circular dated 18-6-1987 contained in Annexure 2. A bare perusal thereof would show that in the event of death of any employee, even if he belonging to the work-charge estab lishment, his dependants were to be given employment on the ground of compassion obviously under the rules relating to the dying in harness. This circular was modified at a later stage and thus in the year 1996 vide Circular dated 15-3-1996 contained in An nexure S. C. A. 2 it was stipulated that in the case of death of an employee of work-charge establishment who had put in continuous service of ten years, the benefit of the rules could be accorded to his dependents wife/husband, son/unmarried daughters or widowed daughters in accordance with their educational qualifications. In a manner of speaking, under this arrangement the work-charge establishment employees were given the same treatment as accorded to the Government employees dying in harness under the rules with regard to the compas-sionatary employment to their dependants, of course with the difference that whereas a regular employee becomes eligible for pass ing on such benefit to his dependents on putting in three years service the employees belonging to the work-charge category could become eligible only after putting in ten years continuous service.;