IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1040 of 2009 Bhagwati Devi, wife of Late Sri Dhirendra Kumar, Collection Peon, Tehsil Garud, District Bageshwar. Hall pata-Village Bunga, Vasula, District Bageshwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Chief Revenue Commissioner, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, Bageshwar. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Garud, District Bageshwar. …Respondents. Mr. S.S.Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 27, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Delay Condonation Application No. 1702 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 5986 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondent has filed counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, an application for condonation of delay has been moved. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. The counter affidavit is taken on record. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Delay in filing the rejoinder affidavit is condoned. The rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Peon/Mali/gardener or any other similar post, which is already vacant in their office. 2 According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner Mr. Dhirendra Kumar was working as seasonal collection peon, who rendered 16 years’ service. He had died on 8-8-2008 leaving behind the petitioner and minor children as well as old parents. The matter of regularization of his service was pending with the State Government. The petitioner also claims that her husband filed a writ petition no. 38525 of 1997 in the Allahabad High Court, which was finally decided vide order dated16-9-1998 in terms of Writ Petition No. 9557 of 1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that she made a number of representation but no action was taken by the respondent no.3 thereon for appointing her on compassionate ground. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been resolved by this Court by order dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules) were considered and it was held that even a person appointed on a temporary basis though not regularly appointed having put in three years of continuous service in a regular vacancy, his dependent would be entitled for appointment under the said Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the present writ petition may be allowed in terms of the order dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State-respondents has fairly conceded to the above fact. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated inter alia in paragraph 7 that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as seasonal collection peon in compliance of the order dated 16-9-1998. It is not denied that he had died on 8-8-2008 while in employment of the respondents. I have perused the order dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others wherein Rule 2(a) of the Rules was considered, and I find that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is 3 settled by that order. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of order dated 31-5-2010. The writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 31-5- 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on merits within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP