- (1.) HEARD Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri R. B. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respon-dents.
(2.) THIS is a Speeial Appeal filed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 passed in CMI Misc. Writ Petition No. 18449 of 2005; Panmatidevi& anotherv. State of U. P. andothers, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, the order dated 11 th February, 2005 has been guashed, and the respondents-appellants has been directed to considerthe claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of the deceased employee. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the issue raised on behalf of the appellant are that the father of the petitioner was initially engaged as seasonal collection peon on 17th February, 1976. There after he worked as seasonal collection peon for differentperiods. From the service book of the father of the petitiner, which has been brought on record as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, it is apparent that from 1st June, 1986 the father of the petitiner has been cbntinuously working as collection peon. The services of large numberof collection peons including. the father of the petitioner were terminated under order dated 24th March, 2000. Writ Petitions were filed by the large number of collection peons including the father of the petitiner, wherein an interim order was granted. As a result where of, he continued in service till his death, on 19th May, 2005, while working as collection peon.
(3.) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 has contended that si?ce the father of the petitiner was working as seasonal collection peon, he did not ho?d any regular post, therefore, dependent of such seasonal collection pe ons are not entitled for appointment under U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. he submits that merely because the father of the petitiner worked continuously as seasonal collection peon without any break si?ce 1986, itwould not improvehiscaseas he was not working against a regular post. Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitiner in reply contends that the working of the father of the petitiner being continuous for decades, it infact cannot be treated as seasonal. Person working throughout the year continuously " for decades cannot be termed as seasonal appointees. The Sub- Divisional Mag istrale has granted revised pay-scale to the father of the petitiner and has also allowed increments. Therefore, the working of the father of the petitiner cannot be said to be seasonal and learned single Judge has not committed any error in issuing directions that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassion-ate ground be considered.;