COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 347/2003 Madan Singh Kanwal …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal Through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Dehradun and Others …….Respondents Sri Lalit Belwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and treat the appointment and seniority of the petitioner from 1982 and other consequential benefits accordingly. 2. Petitioner’s father late Sri Mohan Singh was working as Mali in the Public Works Department, Almora, who died in harness in the year 1977. Thereafter petitioner was given appointment as Chaukidar under the Dying in Harness Rules in the year 1982, but instead of giving regular appointment he was appointed as work charge employee on temporary basis. His appointment was made regular on the same post in the year 1992. 3. The controversy involved in the present writ petition, as to whether an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or temporary appointment, has already been decided by the 2 Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U.P. & Others reported in (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263, which has been followed by this Court in a series of judgments. Para 2 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rule because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread-earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rule is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment and hence the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointments.” 4. Thus, in view of the above position of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 1982 under the Dying in Harness Rules could not have been treated as temporary appointment. The authorities fell into error in the treating the petitioner as a temporary employee and as such, the order of regularization passed in the year 1992 is not tenable under the law. 3 5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner shall be treated to have been regularly appointed in the year 1982 and shall be placed in the seniority list accordingly. The petitioner shall be given all other consequential benefits admissible to him under the law accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh