SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage itself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was given, appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 on supernumerary Class IV post on 20.7.1998 whereupon he joined on 20.8.1998. Subsequently, he was appointed as a junior clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 -4500 also on a supernumerary post by the order dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure No 2 to the writ petition). At the time when the petitioner was given appointment, the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was declared as a dying cadre. However, subsequently, the said cadre has been revived and according to learned Counsel for the petitioner (as stated in paragraph 9 to the writ petition) there are 47 posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari lying vacant in the district of Hardoi. He states that upon a representation being made by the petitioner, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Hardoi has passed the order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner to be adjusted on the vacant post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the regular cadre. According to him the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 22.6.1998 which provided that, even if a person is appointed against the supernumerary post then as and when regular vacancies occurs the employee would be adjusted against the regular vacancy. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari has been revived by means of Government Order dated 20.7.2004. Consequently, he states that he was entitled to be given the benefit thereof.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : 1994 (68) FLR 1191 (SC), has clearly laid down the law that once a person is given compassionate appointment under the Dying -in -Harness Rules then he cannot claim benefit of the said rules for the purpose of being adjusted on any other post. According to him, the said benefit is available only at the first instance of entry into service and hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 24.9.2007 suffers from any illegality whatsoever.;