THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 778 of 2006. Suresh Chandra Auli. … Petitioner. Vs. Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam and another. …Respondents. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Seema Sirohi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents-Forest Development Corpn. Date September 06, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- 1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21-12-2005 passed by respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 2. Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules. 3. Any other writ, order, direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed. 4. Allow the writ petition with cost. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on the post of daily scalar (Passing Munshi) on 10-12-1982 in the U.P. Forest Corporation, Cheed Depot, Tanakpur, District Champawat, who continuously served the department until his death on 4-3-1996. 2 The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed in the department under the provisions of the Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974 on account of death of his father while in service. I have perused the material placed before this Court including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the controversy involved in this writ petition stood resolved by the order dated 21-2-2006 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 63 of 2005, General Manager, Kumaon Jal Sansthan Nainital and another Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi, wherein it was held that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, who was holding the post of Chaukidar/Beldar for more than 12 years was a Government Servant within the meaning of Clause (iii) of Rule 2(a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In view of the order dated 21-2-2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 63 of 2005, the father of the petitioner is covered under the definition clause (iii) of Rule 2(a) of the said Rules. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21-12-2005 passed by the respondent no.2 cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for being appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP