High Court · 2025

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 540/2025 and 438/2025. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisth, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

1. Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed on compassionate ground as daily wager on account of death of the breadwinners in their family, who were serving in work charged establishment in different engineering departments of the State. 2. According to petitioners, they have served for sufficiently long period of time; therefore, they are entitled to be given regular appointment, but their claim is not being considered. 3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1653 of 2023 alone are being discussed and considered. Reliefs sought in WPSS No. 1653 of 2023 are as follows: “1. 2. To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to treat the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a regular one and grant him such consequential benefits as would have accrued to him being a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules.

3. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post of his appointment since 01.06.2015.”

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the father/mother of the petitioners were employed in work charge establishment under the State Government and they had become due for regularisation in view of long services rendered as work charged employee; however, due to their untimely death, they could not acquire status of a regular employee and petitioners were given compassionate appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have served for the last more than ten years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a Government Order dated 04.12.2002, issued by Additional Secretary, Irrigation Department to Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. Para 10 of the said Government Order provides that in case of death of work charged employees who were eligible for regularisation, their dependent family member may be appointed as daily wager. 6. It is the case of petitioners that since petitioners were appointed as daily wager in terms of the policy decision taken by State Government, therefore, their appointment cannot be said to be irregular. It is further their case that after rendering long, continuous and satisfactory service as daily wager, petitioners have earned regularisation. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021, for contending that appointment given on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel relies upon a judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011, by Full Bench of this Court for contending that dependents of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of ‘Government Servant’ as defined in Rule 2(a)(iii) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness Rules), 1974. Para 27 of said judgment is extracted below: “27. This Court therefore holds that the dependants of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of a “Government Servant” as defined under Section 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules. Hence, they are not liable to be given the Rules, employment on compassionate ground under irrespective of the numbers of the years such an employee had put in service, prior to his death.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021, certain similarly situate persons, who were appointed as daily wager on compassionate ground on account of death of the breadwinner, have been regularised. 10. Having regard to the pleadings made and reliefs sought in the writ petitions, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make representation, seeking regularisation of their service. It shall be open to them to place reliance on the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021. 11. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation for their regularisation, to the competent authority, within two weeks from today. If petitioners make such representation, the competent authority shall look into the claim of the petitioners and pass necessary orders, as per law, within five months from the date of presentation of such representation. 2. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mahinder/

02.09.2025 MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b0892 3c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4B ABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH