Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 102 (UTT)

Manoj Purohit v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-21

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. The present Special Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1911 of 2023, whereby, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 2. There is a delay of 49 days in preferring the instant Special Appeal. Delay is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, and therefore, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and delay in filing special appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant/petitioner late Padma Dutt Purhoit, who was employed as a Waiter (class-IV post) in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “GMVNL”) on a substantive basis, but unfortunately, on 07.04.2018 the petitioner’s father died and thereafter, an application was moved for seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of the educational qualification. The petitioner/appellant claims appointment in class-III post since he is a graduate and having diploma in Computer Application Software. However, without considering his qualification, the petitioner/appellant was offered appointment by an order dated 07.03.2019, issued by the Managing Director, GMVNL on the post of Waiter on compassionate ground and given posting in Tourism Section at Headquarter. This offer of appointment dated 07.03.2019 was accepted voluntarily by the petitioner/appellant and after the completion of the probation period, the services of the petitioner/appellant was confirmed on the pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/- by an order dated 22.06.2020. 4. The petitioner/appellant after accepting the appointment and on completion of the probation period, submitted a representation on 11.01.2021, wherein, he has sought an amendment in his original appointment and claimed that the same be treated to be a class-III post instead of a class-IV post. When no action was taken by the respondents despite several reminders, the petitioner/appellant preferred a Claim Petition No. 95/DB/2021 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun and the said Claim Petition was disposed of by the Tribunal on 06.12.2021, whereby, the Managing Director of the GMVNL was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. When no action was taken by the respondents despite several reminders, the petitioner/appellant preferred a Claim Petition No. 95/DB/2021 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun and the said Claim Petition was disposed of by the Tribunal on 06.12.2021, whereby, the Managing Director of the GMVNL was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Thereafter, in compliance of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, the Managing Director of GMVNL by an order dated 18.01.2022 rejected the claim of the appointment of the petitioner/appellant in class-III post on compassionate ground on the ground that already offer of appointment of class-IV post was given to the petitioner/appellant, which he has accepted and joined. 6. Being aggrieved with the rejection of claim of the petitioner/appellant, the petitioner/ appellant preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1911 of 2022, in which, the petitioner/appellant gives the reference of some other instances in which the appointment on compassionate ground was given according to their qualification. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 16.10.2023, on ground that since the petitioner/appellant accepted the appointment offered to him in Group-D post, he cannot be permitted to raise the contention that since he has qualification for appointment to Group-C post, therefore, he should be appointed on Group-C post. 7. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge also taken into consideration the judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, decided on 29.09.2023, wherein, it was observed that once compassionate appointment was offered and accepted, it cannot be permitted to be upgraded. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that against the said judgment dated 29.09.2023, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1489 of 2023, an Special Appeal No. 6 of 2024 was also preferred and the same was dismissed by this Court today itself, i.e., 21st February, 2024 and this is also one of the aspects of the matter that the present Special Appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 9. No doubt, it is a settled principle of law that giving appointment to the dependant of the deceased employees, who died in harness is only a beneficial scheme so that the family of the deceased employee may not suffer from any financial crisis due to untimely death of the deceased employee. 9. No doubt, it is a settled principle of law that giving appointment to the dependant of the deceased employees, who died in harness is only a beneficial scheme so that the family of the deceased employee may not suffer from any financial crisis due to untimely death of the deceased employee. Since it is a beneficial scheme and as such no one can claim as a matter of right to get appointment on compassionate ground. Here in the present case, the compassionate appointment offered to the petitioner, who voluntarily accepted the same without any protest and after accepting, he also completed the probation period and after completion of probation period, he was given the status of the confirmed employee. 10. This aspect clearly reveals that with open eyes the petitioner/appellant accepts the offer of appointment in class-IV post without any protest and once he voluntarily accepts the said order, then he subsequent thereto cannot claim the compassionate appointment on a higher post. Once an offer is given under the dying-in-harness rules and the same is accepted, then no one can further claim either for up-gradation of post or to claim to consider his claim for dying-in-harness rules afresh in a higher post. 11. Therefore, we do not find any substance and merit in the instant Special Appeal. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. 12. Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.