IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 (SS) OF 2006 Smt. Danista, W/o late Sri Mangta, P.O. Gurukul Narson, P.S. Manglaur, District Haridwar. ………………Petitioner. Versus 1. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Maharani Bagh Dehradun, through its Chief Managing Director. 2. General Manager, Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd., Mayapuri Haridwar. ……………Respondents. Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 10.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Both the parties have agreed that let the writ petition be finally disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which has been adopted by the Uttaranchal (Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependasnts of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974), Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner late Sri Mangta (deceased) who was working as Painter in Mohammadpur Power House under the supervision of the respondents no. 3 sustained injuries in an accident on 17.01.2003 during the course of employment causing death on 23.10.2003. After the death of her husband, the petitioner approached the authorities on several occasions as well as the respondent no. 3 to grant her compassionate appointment as after the death of her husband, there is no other source of livelihood. The petitioner filed a suit for compensation before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Haridwar numbered as W.C.A. No. 4/2004 (Smt. Danista Vs. General Manager Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.) and the Workmen compensation Commissioner vide its order dated 18.06.2005 allowed the claim and directed the defendant to pay sum of Rs. 1,19, 168/- to the petitioner. The petitioner has also applied for compassionate appointment by way of representation dated 15.06.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) but the same has not been disposed of. In Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P [(2002) 1 UPLBEC 337. It has been held as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad (Supra), for stressing his submission that the petitioner’s father would be deemed to have been a regular Government servant in view of the fact that his appointment has been converted into work charge employee in pursuance of the scheme approved by the Apex Court. He further submitted that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Pushp Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, reported in 1991 (18) ALR 591, the petitioner is entitled for getting the appointment. In this case, the husband of Smt. Pushp Lata was working as a Paid Apprentice. The plea that he was not a regular employee although he had been working in the department for the last 17 years was not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness Rule was rejected by the Court and the directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner(Smt. Pushp Lata) according to her qualifications relying upon this case, the writ petition filed by Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P and others, reported in 1998 (79) FLR 608, was also allowed in which the High Court found that the petitioner’s husband in that case has satisfactorily worked for about 10 years until his death and though he may be a daily wager, the petitioner can be accommodated on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. State of U.P and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2187 (All); 1 UPLBEC (Alld.) (Sum) 15, the benefit was given to the temporary appointee as he was working against a substantive vacancy.” “The Apex Court was considering the scheme and the status of a work-charge employee even after being confirmed it has been held that a work charge employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work charge employee and he continues to be a work charge employee. The question of regularization against a regular vacancy was not in issue before the Apex Court. No rule, law of any Government order has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State to indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the work charge employee who have to their credit a considerable period of service and even in cases after very longer period of service, they retire as such. Even no provision for confirmation of a work charge employee as a work charge employee is available in the State of Uttar Pradesh nor any such provision has been shown by the learned State Counsel despite being specifically asked for.” “It may also be taken note of that if daily wager or a work charge employee is engaged against a particular duty or post, and that work is of perennial nature, the presumption would be that such an employee would be entitled for being treated to have been continuing against a regular vacancy.” Relying upon various judgment of Apex Court as well as this Court, I have taken a view in Laxmi Devi Vs. General Manager Kumaon Jal Sansthan and others in W.P. No.1119 (ss) of 2004, which was decided on 09.05.2005 that a daily wager is also entitled for compassionate appointment. Relevant observations are quoted below:- “Further in view of the judgment of he Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Lata Dixit vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others 1991 (18) ALR 509 and Smt. Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 S.C., 1976, so far as the appointment on compassionate ground should not be delayed as after the death of bread-earner, the whole family is starving. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Manipur Vs. Thingujam Brojen (1996) 9 SCC Page 29, further in Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. State of U.P. 1999 (3) Educational and Service Cases Page 215, the benefit has also been extended to the temporary employees. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 within a period of three months from the filing of the certified copy of the order.” Since the husband of the petitioner expired in the year, 2001, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the matter of compassionate appointment should have been considered without any delay in view of the Judgment of Smt. Sushma Gosai and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (4) SCC 468. In the case of Smt. Sushma Gosai and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (4) SCC, 468, the Apex Court has held as under:- “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. In the result, we allow the appeal and in reversal of the order of the High Court, we direct respondent no. 2 to appoint Sushma Gosain appellant in the post to which she has already qualified. We further direct that she shall be appointed in an appropriate place in Delhi itself. The appointment shall be made within three weeks from today.” It is well settled that appointment on the compassionate ground is purely humanitarian consideration because of the fact that family will not be able to make both ends meet. The propose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying-in-harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. Thus compassionate appointment is treated to alleviate the distress of the family. In view of the above, the respondents no. 2, therefore, is directed to dispose of the representation dated 15.04.2003 and 02.02.2006 filed by the petitioner taking into consideration the family condition for the appointment on compassionate ground within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 10.03.2006 Rathour