Court Allows Appeals, Denies Compassionate Appointments to Deceased Employees' Dependents. Upholds Statutory Rules Over Executive Instructions.

The court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments. It concluded that the dependents of deceased daily wage employees were not entitled to compassionate appointments under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as the deceased employees did not meet the definition of "government servant" under the Rules. The court emphasized the supremacy of statutory rules over executive instructions and clarified the retrospective application of judicial decisions, stating that unless specified otherwise, judicial decisions are generally retrospective.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of dependents of deceased daily wage employees to appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. Interpretation of "government servant" under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
3. Applicability of the Rules to daily wage employees.
4. Validity of appointments made through circulars or executive instructions contrary to statutory provisions.
5. Retrospective application of judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Dependents of Deceased Daily Wage Employees to Appointment on Compassionate Grounds
The primary issue was whether the dependents of deceased daily wage employees are entitled to compassionate appointments under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The court concluded that the deceased employees were neither permanent nor temporary employees and their appointments were not against regular vacancies. Therefore, their dependents were not entitled to compassionate appointments under the Rules.

2. Interpretation of "Government Servant" Under the Rules
The Rules define "government servant" to include those who are permanent, those who are temporary but regularly appointed, and those who have put in three years of continuous service in a regular vacancy. The court found that the deceased employees did not fit this definition as they were daily wage laborers and not appointed against regular vacancies.

3. Applicability of the Rules to Daily Wage Employees
The court emphasized that the Rules were not applicable to daily wage employees. It stated, "The question which should have been posed is as to whether daily wagers are included within the definition of 'government servant'. If daily wagers are not government servants, question of applicability of the Rules does not arise." Therefore, the dependents of daily wage employees could not claim compassionate appointments under these Rules.

4. Validity of Appointments Made Through Circulars or Executive Instructions Contrary to Statutory Provisions
The court held that statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India would prevail over any circulars or executive instructions. It was noted, "Indisputably when Rules were framed by the State in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India the same would prevail over circulars/letters which have no force of law." Consequently, any circulars or executive instructions that contradicted the Rules were deemed invalid.

5. Retrospective Application of Judicial Decisions
The court addressed the argument that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) should not apply retrospectively. The court clarified that judicial decisions are generally retrospective unless specified otherwise. It stated, "Judicial decisions unless otherwise specified are retrospective. They would only be prospective in nature if it has been provided therein." Thus, the principles laid down in Umadevi were applicable to the present cases, even though the cause of action arose before the decision was rendered.

Conclusion
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside. The court concluded that the dependents of deceased daily wage employees were not entitled to compassionate appointments under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as the deceased employees did not meet the definition of "government servant" under the Rules. The court also reaffirmed the supremacy of statutory rules over executive instructions and the retrospective application of judicial decisions.

---