IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 212 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand and others. …Appellants. Versus Devki Devi …Respondent. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The husband (Mahesh Singh) of the respondent died in harness while working in the Public Works Department on 19.2.1996. It is not a matter of dispute that at the time of the death of Mahesh Singh, he was a work charge employee. The respondent claimed appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of her husband in harness, by moving an application in May, 1996. Since the appellants did not accept her claim, she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1957 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 13.5.2008. By the aforesaid order, this Court quashed the order dated 21.4.2004, whereby the request made by the respondent had not been acceded to by the appellants. Thereupon the learned Single Judge through the impugned order dated 13.5.2008 directed the appellants to reconsider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds within two months. 2. The order passed by this Court on 13.5.2008 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1957 of 2003 has been assailed by the appellants through the present Special Appeal. 2 3. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the State Government through the Government Order dated 16.3.1996 had, for the first time, brought into the zone of consideration, for appointment on compassionate grounds, dependents of employees who were working in the work charge establishment, and had died in harness. It is the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Government Order dated 16.3.1996 being prospective in nature cannot be the basis of a claim, at the hands of the respondent, for appointment on compassionate grounds, since the respondent’s husband Mahesh Singh had died on 19.2.1996 i.e. before the Government Order dated 16.3.1996 was issued. 4. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, however, find no merit therein. In our considered view, the date of death is irrelevant to the Government Order dated 16.3.1996. What is relevant is the date when the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is made. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that after the husband of the respondent died on 19.2.1996, she made a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds in May 1996 i.e., within three months of his death. The representation made by the respondent in May 1996 had been made when the Government itself had accepted the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the death of an employee in harness, who was employed merely in a work charge capacity. 3 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. We, therefore, hereby uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.5.2008 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1957 of 2003. Having upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we hereby direct the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds within two months from today. 7. The instant Special Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 31.3.2010 Rathour