Similarly, in Meena Devi Chaudhary (Smt.) v. Chief Engineer & Ors.

Similarly, in Meena Devi Chaudhary (Smt.) vs. Chief Engineer, U.P. Public Works Department, Lucknow and others, [(2002) 2 UPLBEC 1421], the Court while considering the case of the daily wager who died in harness, held that a daily wager who worked continuously and was being paid in the regular pay scale, would be treated as a Government servant contemplated under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 and that the dependant would be entitled for consideration on compassionate appointment. In Saroj Devi (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and others [(1992) 2 UPLBEC 1404], the Court while considering the case of a casual or adhoc employee held that if a person worked for a long period against a substantive vacancy, his dependant would be considered for appointment compassionate grounds. In Usha Saxena (Kumari) vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another, [(2010) 1 U.D. 575] the Court, in similar circumstances, held that a daily wager who had worked continuously for 30 years indicates that there was a regular vacancy and that the daily wager had worked in a regular vacancy or 7 in a substantive vacancy and, accordingly, issued a mandamus to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made therein. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds light of observations made aforesaid and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 4th October, 2012 Rajni (Tarun Agarwala, J.)