Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Ravi Karan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 12, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/467112

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 39127 of 1997
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - dying-in-harness - Rules 3 and 4 of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 - appointment under dying-in-harness rules is a permanent appointment - not treated as temporary appointment - provision of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules are not...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 - Rules 3 and 4; Dying-in-Harness Rules

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravi Karan Singh

Advocate B.B. Paul and ;M.K. Rajvanshi, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 - Rules 3 and 4; Dying-in-Harness Rules
Reported In
1999(2)AWC976; (1999)3UPLBEC2263

Excerpt

service - dying-in-harness - rules 3 and 4 of u. p. temporary government servant (termination of services) rules, 1975 - appointment under dying-in-harness rules is a permanent appointment - not treated as temporary appointment - provision of u. p. temporary government servant (termination of services) rules are not the applicable rules. - m. katju and kamal kishore,jj.1. this petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned single judge by his order dated 19.12.1997. the point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the dying-in-harness rules is a permanent appointment or a temporary appointment. according to the learned single judge, this court had earlier held that an appointment under dying-in-harness rules is a permanent appointment vide budhi sagar dubey v. d. i. o. s., 1993 esc 21 ; gulab yadau u. state of u. p. and others, 1991 (2) vplbec 995 and dhirendra pratap singh v. d. i. o. s. and others, 1991 (1) uplbec 427. the learned single judge who passed the referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed with the abovementioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger bench.2. in our opinion, an appointment under the dying-in-harness rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment, the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the dying-in-harness rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. we, therefore, hold that the appointment under dying-in -harness rules is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of u. p. temporary government servant (termination of services) rules. 1975 will not apply to such appointments.3. the petition is disposed ofaccordingly.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Kamal Kishore,JJ.

1. This petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge by his order dated 19.12.1997. The point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or a temporary appointment. According to the learned single Judge, this Court had earlier held that an appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment vide Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D. I. O. S., 1993 ESC 21 ; Gulab Yadau u. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (2) VPLBEC 995 and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D. I. O. S. and others, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 427. The learned single Judge who passed the referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed with the abovementioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger Bench.

2. In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment Is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment, the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying-in -Harness Rules is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules. 1975 will not apply to such appointments.

3. The petition is disposed ofaccordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial