IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1565 of 2010 Smt. Vimla Patni, W/O Late Shri Puran Chandra Patni, R/O Village Ghimali, Post-Sandeo, Tehsil Didihar, District Pithoragarh. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttaranchal Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Revenue Commissioner, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. District Magistrate, District Pithoragarh. …Respondents. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 19, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 10-7- 2006 passed by respondent no. 3 contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint her in Class III post under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. According to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner late Puran Chandra Patni was working as Collection Amin in Tehsil Didihat continuously since long time, who died as a result of motor- accident on 18-1-2006, while on duty. The petitioner moved an application to the Tehsildar concerned on 6-2-2006 for appointing her under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. In paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was working continuously as a Collection Amin since 1989. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, but she has been deprived of his legal right for a long time. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in the department as a Collection Amin for a certain time period and he had worked from time to time in different intervals on the same post. The contention of the respondents is that since the husband was working as Seasonal Collection Amin, therefore, she is not entitled for the relief claimed by her in the writ petition. The respondents have admitted that the husband of the petitioner died on 18-1-2006. Be that as it may, the respondents have nowhere, in their counter affidavit, denied the averment made by the petitioner in paragraph 12 that the husband of the petitioner was working continuously since 1989. The respondents in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit have stated that the contents of para nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition are argumentative in nature, so in this regard a proper reply will be given at the time of hearing. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is resolved 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. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost identical to the controversy involved in 3 Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. He also conceded that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 31-5-2010 passed therein. 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 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