IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 696 (SS) of 2006 Mohan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Hem Chand Joshi, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Hem Chand Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The father of the petitioner was a daily wage worker in the Forest Department. He died in harness on 30th July 2005. The son of the deceased (petitioner) moved an application in time for his appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 but the application of the petitioner has not been considered. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the appointment of the petitioner could not be made, firstly, as the father of the petitioner was not a “government servant as defined under section 2 (a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, which is also applicable in the State of Uttarakhand and reads as follows:- 2.(a) “Government servants” means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who- (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or 2 (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” Secondly; under the aforesaid Act family of the deceased is defined under section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act. Section 5 which provides that if a person died in harness, his dependent can move an application and he shall be suitably employed under the said rules. The learned standing counsel stated that the petitioner was neither a permanent employee nor had completed three years of regular service. The service of the father of the petitioner was casual in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal reported in [(2006) 9 SCC 337] according to this judgment service of the father of the petitioner was liable to be regularized and moreover, the State Government itself has regularized various employees under which father of the petitioner was also liable to be regularized, but it could not be done. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others (in C.M.W.P. No. 24231 of 1997), relevant portion reads as follows:- “The main contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that in pursuance of the Govt. order she is entitled for the appointment in the said department. On behalf of the State a counter affidavit has been filed and it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was the regular employee. On behalf of the petitioner, Govt. order No. 6/ 12- 19/3 niyukti-4 Lucknow dated 7th October 1974 has been produced showing that rule of dying in Harness is fully applicable on the person who is not regularly appointed and died in harness. The main 3 object of the rules is to provide an employment to the family of the person who died in harness. The employment is given on the compassionate ground and there force in my opinion, it would not be proper to say that the husband of the petitioner has not been regularly appointed but he has worked for years in the department and died on harness. Therefore the heir of the deceased is entitled to get benefit of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.” In view of the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner moves a representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Dehradun the same shall be decided by the said authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him. It is further directed that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Dehradun shall look into the matter in the true letter and spirit of the law considering the fact that the father of the petitioner had worked for more than ten years. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 14.09.2011 VKG