IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 7254 of 2001 Laxmi Narayan ………….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The father of the petitioner was a work charge employee in the Irrigation Department. The status of a work charge employee has been held to be on a project basis and not in a regular employment. A Full Bench of this Court in Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2011 (1) U.D., 6 has also held this to be the status of a work charge employee. The father of the petitioner who was a work charge employee died while in harness on 27.6.1998. The petitioner seeks employment on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as Dying in Harness Rules). “Government servant” is defined under Rule 2 (a) of the Dying in Harness Rules, which reads as follows :- 2. Definitions .- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires : (a) "Government servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who – 2 (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” The father of the petitioner who was a work charge employee does not fall in the definition of “Government Servant”, as such appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given to the petitioner. Writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.10.2011 Avneet