IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 150 of 2006 State of U.P. & others. ………. Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar. ..………. Respondent Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In the writ petition, it was contended that the father of the writ petitioner was appointed as Beldar. It was not disputed that such appointment was in the work charge establishment of the State under the Irrigation Department. It was contended that, while so engaged, the father of the writ petitioner died on 10th July, 1996. It was contended that the writ petitioner, being entitled, applied for a compassionate appointment. It was contended that, in terms of the scheme dated 26th September, 1990, compassionate appointment was available to a dependent wife or a son of an employee, who died while still remaining engaged in the work charge establishment and such compassionate appointment may be given in the work charge establishment. It was contended that the request for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner in the work charge establishment was rejected on the ground that such scheme was given a go by on 1st June, 1995, reaffirmed on 16th September, 2002. It was contended in the writ petition that, since the scheme dated 26th September, 1990 was withdrawn on 16th September, 2002 and since the death of the father of the writ petitioner occurred on 10th July, 1996 and since an application for compassionate appointment was made much prior to 16th September, 2002, the purported reason given for dishonouring the request of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is not sustainable in law. 2 2. With this case, respondent approached the writ court, but when the writ petition was considered, the learned Single Judge applied the law contained in The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It has now been settled, in view of a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi and others reported in 2009 (1) UD 511; that the said Rules have no application in relation to employees of work charge establishments. It was also not the contention of the respondent / writ petitioner that the said Rules applied. On the other hand, the contention was that there was a separate scheme, propounded on 26th September, 1990, for giving appointment on compassionate ground to dependents of work charge employees, who have died in harness, in the work charge establishment itself. It was contended that the said scheme was withdrawn in 2002 and, during the time the scheme was in vogue, respondent, in terms of the scheme, became entitled to a compassionate appointment in the work charge establishment of the State, where the father of the respondent was working. 3. It was the contention of the State in its counter affidavit that, on 12th September, 1973, the Engineering Department of the State propounded a scheme for giving compassionate appointment in the work charge establishment to dependents of employees working in work charge establishment, who died in harness. It was contended that the said scheme was withdrawn on 1st June, 1995. It was contended that, by reason of withdrawal of the said scheme on 1st June, 1995, the scheme propounded on 26th September, 1990, in the Irrigation Department of the State, also stood withdrawn and the same was merely clarified by the letter dated 16th September, 2002. It is the contention of the respondent / writ petitioner that a look at the letter dated 16th September, 2002 would amply make it clear that the scheme dated 26th September, 1990 was put to rest by the letter dated 16th September, 2002 and, accordingly, the scheme, propounded on 26th September, 1990, continued till 16th September, 2002. 3 4. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner. It appears to us that the letter dated 16th September, 2002 was issued to ensure that the scheme, propounded on 26th September, 1990, remained not in force after 1st June, 1995 and, in any event, not on and after 16th September, 2002. The letter dated 16th September, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that, in 1973, a scheme was propounded in the Engineering Department to give compassionate appointment to dependents of people engaged in work charge establishment, who have died in harness and the said scheme was brought to an end on 1st June, 1995. Irrigation Department is part of the Engineering Department of the State. The 1990 scheme, being repetition of what had been provided in the scheme made on 12th September, 1973, should be deemed to have come to an end the moment the said scheme dated 12th September, 1973 was put to rest on 1st June, 1995. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the respondent / writ petitioner that, as on the date of the death of his father, the scheme for giving compassionate appointment to dependents of work charge employees was available. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention that, even in 2001, a compassionate appointment had been given in work charge establishment. That may be so, but since the scheme to give such appointment came to an end in 1995, we are unable to issue a mandamus, as has been prayed for in the writ petition. 6. In the circumstances, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 26.07.2011 26.07.2011 G