HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.823 of 2006 (S/S) Khushal Giri S/o late Sri Bishan Giri … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 30th December, 2009 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri T. A. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 and Sri N. P. Sah, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 06th July, 2000. It is clear from the order of appointment dated 21st July, 2001 issued in favour of the petitioner (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition) that upon the death of petitioner’s father, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on a temporary basis and on a consolidated salary of Rs.925/- per month. On this basis, the petitioner continued to work and consequently, he filed the present writ petition praying that he should be given the salary as per the Minimum Wages Act and that his services should be regularized. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended and a further relief was sought that his appointment may be treated as permanent w.e.f. 26th July, 2001, i.e., from the date of the initial appointment. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is, that the petitioner, having been appointed on compassionate grounds, could not be appointed on a temporary basis and that such appointments can only be permanent in nature. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground can only be made on a substantive vacancy on a permanent basis and cannot be made on a temporary basis. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Nandi Devi Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others 2005 (1) U.D. 669, wherein this Court directed the respondents to treat the services of the writ petitioner as permanent and not as a temporary one. In the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1993 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2263, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the appointment provided under the Dying in Harness Rules can only be treated as a permanent appointment and not as a temporary appointment. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground under the relevant scheme, but submitted that the workman was appointed on a workcharge basis and, consequently, he could not claim regularization on a regular post as a matter of right. 2 In my opinion, the respondents have lost sight of the fact that the appointment made on compassionate ground can only be a permanent appointment and that an appointment on a workcharge basis could not be made. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed by him. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been appointed on a permanent post w.e.f. the date when the petitioner was appointed i.e. 21st July, 2001 with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.12.2009 LSR