HM Journal

Subordinates should have knowledge of what and what not to do under designated post

Facts-

  1. Uttam Singh’s ( respondent ) father was working in the irrigation department. He filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court aiming to get the post of tubewell operator under the Uttar Pradesh recruitment of dependents of government servants dying in harness rules 1974.  But it was rejected. Also the Court suggested that the selection process of respondent’s father in irrigation department is against the vacancy process. While solving the matter the court took 6 years and there the ‘s father unfortunately died completing his thirteen years of duty with regular pay scale.
  2.  Respondent had came to the court to get the benefit of compensation of appointment of his father. Adding to the issue he said that there are many other people like his father but they had got the benefit leaving him.
  3. The state of Uttar Pradesh appellant mentioned that his father was not a regularised worker so he may not get the benefit. Respondent said that his father had been working for more than three years hence to be considered as government servant and thus the benefit be granted.
  4. The court found that his father was never been considered as regularised servant but he was made to work like a regularised servant and he was also transferred to other departments as a government employee which is only done to a regularised government servant.

Observation by Supreme Court-

It was a case of an appointment against a regular vacancy. Respondent’s father was treated as a regular employee but was labelled as a part time tube well operator.

Judgment-

Petition rejected

Judgment name- The state of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Uttam Singh

Judgement date- 3rd August 2021

Citation-  Civil appeal number 4575 of 2021

By- Vaishnavi Kashyap

College name- Dr. DY Patil law college Pimpri, Pune

Semester- Second semester

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.