| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. |
| Introduction | The case states about the termination of Brijesh Kumar, who UPSRTC employed after his father’s death but later dismissed for misconduct. |
| Factual Background | Despite applying under the Dying in Harness Rules, Brijesh Kumar was offered a contractual position instead of a compassionate appointment. |
| Legal Issues | Whether Kumar’s appointment was under the Dying in Harness Rules, and if the termination was lawful without a disciplinary inquiry. |
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | The court concluded that Kumar’s appointment was contractual and not under the Dying in Harness Rules, and that his termination was procedurally flawed. |
| Conclusion | The Supreme Court held that Kumar’s termination was invalid due to lack of a disciplinary inquiry, but his appointment was not permanent. |
| Current Scenario | The termination order was set aside, but the nature of employment remains contractual, not permanent under the compassionate rules. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case states about the termination of Brijesh Kumar, a contract conductor employed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), who was initially appointed on a contractual basis after applying for a compassionate appointment following his father’s death. The Supreme Court ruled that while the termination was procedurally flawed due to the absence of a disciplinary inquiry, Kumar’s appointment was not on a compassionate basis and therefore not permanent.
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ MORE – SUPREME COURT DECISION ON BAIL IN MONEY LAUNDERING CASE
