State of Haryana and Others Vs. Kanta Rani
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4281 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2309/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2309/2000)
Petitioner: State of Haryana and Others
Respondent: Kanta Rani
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4281 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2309/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2309/2000)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Compassionate appointment – Husband, a Class III employee – On death, wife appointed as Class IV employee – Employment
accepted – Later claim of scale of Rs. 950-1500 being “one step below”. Held that in view of the decision in State of Haryana v. Rajiv Deshwal, one step below means appointment in lower post. Hence appeal allowed.
(Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court allowed the writ petition, filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to a post carrying pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (pre-revised).
4. The respondent’s husband was
working on a Class III post who subsequently died. After the death of the respondent’s husband, the respondent gave an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellants appointed the respondent as Class IV employee which she accepted. Subsequently, she claimed that she is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 – a step lower than what her husband was getting. On refusal by the appellant, she filed a writ petition before the High Court, which has been allowed. Aggrieved, the State is in appeal before us.
5. The controversy in this case stands concluded by the decision of
this Court in SLP (c) No. 778 of 1999, State of Haryana and Others v. Rajiv Deshwal, dated 22.3.1999. In the said decision, this Court held that one step lower means the appointment on a lower post. Following this decision, we allow this appeal and set aside this judgment under appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. We may clarify that the respondent would continue to work on class IV post on which she was working earlier.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court allowed the writ petition, filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to a post carrying pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (pre-revised).
4. The respondent’s husband was
working on a Class III post who subsequently died. After the death of the respondent’s husband, the respondent gave an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellants appointed the respondent as Class IV employee which she accepted. Subsequently, she claimed that she is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 – a step lower than what her husband was getting. On refusal by the appellant, she filed a writ petition before the High Court, which has been allowed. Aggrieved, the State is in appeal before us.
5. The controversy in this case stands concluded by the decision of
this Court in SLP (c) No. 778 of 1999, State of Haryana and Others v. Rajiv Deshwal, dated 22.3.1999. In the said decision, this Court held that one step lower means the appointment on a lower post. Following this decision, we allow this appeal and set aside this judgment under appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. We may clarify that the respondent would continue to work on class IV post on which she was working earlier.
