COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1957/2003 Devki Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Public Works Department, Dehradun & Others …….Respondents Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 13th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.4.2004, which is contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment on the compassionate grounds. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules. 2. Husband of the petitioner late Sri Mahesh Singh was initially appointed as daily wager in the year 1977 in the Public Works Department. With effect from 1.4.1984, the husband of the petitioner was taken in the work charge establishment of the respondent department, who died in harness on 19.2.1996. The petitioner has four minor daughters. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied in May, 1996 for her appointment on the compassionate ground. Respondent no. 5 i.e. Assistant Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Nainital 2 vide his letter dated 19.7.1997 recommended the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the respondent no. 4 i.e. Executive Engineer, Construction Division, PWD, Nainital. After much official correspondence, on 21.4.2004, the respondent no. 4 passed an order stating therein that in view of the applicability of the Government Order dated 16.3.1996, Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment and declined to consider the representation of the petitioner. 3. Facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee and that he was only a work charged employee. However, it has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the Government Order dated 16.3.1996 provides for employment to the dependents of an employee of work charge establishment who dies in harness. But since the aforesaid Government Order came into force w.e.f. 16.3.1996 and the petitioner’s husband died on 19.2.1996, therefore, the provisions of the said Government Order are not applicable in the case of petitioner. But in my considered opinion, the pending claims will be covered even by the prospective Government Orders and, therefore, the case of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate grounds needs reconsideration. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.4.2004 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date 3 of production of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation/direction. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.5.2008 Prabodh