Vikas Sharma v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Sugar Industry and Cane and Ors

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5600 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikas Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Sugar Industry And Cane And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶2This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, seeking quashing of the order/letter no.1008-09/Vikas/Pari/Mr.Ni/dated 06.02.2018 passed by respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Cane and Sugar, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Annexure-1).

¶3On direction of this Court, Mr. Mr. Sanjay R. Bhoosreddy, Additional Chief Secretary/Cane Commissioner was present before this Court on 21.04.2023, and after hearing him, this Court passed the following order:- "1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5.

¶2In compliance of the order dated 18.04.2023, Mr. Sanjay R. Bhoosreddy, Additional Chief Secretary/Cane Commissioner is present in the Court. He has explained the circumstances under which it is not possible to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time.

¶3Cane Development Council is a body incorporated under Section 5 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation and Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and the rules framed thereunder, which does not have any budgetary support from the State Government except for carrying out some road work for the farmers. Council has to manage its final affairs from the prescribed contribution.

¶4So far as appointments given on the past on compassionate ground in the council are concerned, Sri Sanjay R. Bhoosreddy fairly submits that it was a mistake as dying in harness rules were not adopted by the council and no fresh appointment has been given after 2014 under dying in harness rules as these rules are not applicable.

¶5Sri Vivek Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter be deferred for final decision for a week and in the meantime, he will speak to his client/petitioner.

¶6List this case after a week.

¶7In view of the aforesaid explanation, personal appearance of Mr. Sanjay R. Bhoosreddy, Additional Chief Secretary/Cane Commissioner is dispensed with."

¶4The petitioner's father was working in Cane Development Councils; he died in harness on 27.03.2017; the petitioner, being the eldest son, applied to the Councils for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1974"). As the employees of the Cane Development Councils are not Government servants, the provisions of the Rules, 1974 are not applicable. If some of the rules were applicable in respect of service conditions, it would not meant that the Rules, 1974 are also applicable to the employees of the Cane Development Councils, which is an autonomous body, created under Section 5 of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation and Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. The Government does not grant Budgetary support to the Cane Development Councils. Except for carrying out road work for the farmers, the Councils has to manage its financial affairs from the Finance Controller. If some persons were appointed under the Rules, 1974, a wrong precedent would not entitle the petitioner to get appointment under the said Rules, which are not applicable to the Councils.

¶5In view thereof, I find no substance and merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed. [D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 29.5.2023 MVS/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench