IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1563 of 2006 1. Santosh Bhatt, S/O Late Shri Devi Datt, R/O Village Nagrora, Post-Bungu China, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh. 2. Ishawari Devi W/O Late Shri Devi Datt, R/O Village Nagrora, Post-Bungu China, Tehsil Didihat, District Pithoragarh. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Revenue, Government of Uttaranchal Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Revenue Commissioner, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. District Magistrate, District Pithoragarh. …Respondents. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date August 20, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner no. 1 on Class IV post in District Pithoragarh under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974(for short the Rules). According to the petitioners, late Devi Datt, who was father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2 was working as Seasonal Collection Amin/ peon ( a Class IV employee) in Tehsil Pithoragarh, who died on 2-8-2005 while under employment. The deceased in his lifetime filed W.P.S.S. No. 31419 of 1997 Hem Chandra Upreti and others Vs. State of U.P. before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was allowed in terms of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 9557 of 1997 Umrao Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others vide order dated 16-7- 1997 and as a result thereof, the husband of the petitioner no. 2 started getting salary and all consequential benefits along with bonus. 2 The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and have denied the claim of the petitioners. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated in paragraph no. 4 that the deceased Sri Devi Datt was working as Collection Amin/Peon since 1989. The petitioners have annexed a copy of appointment letter dated 22-12- 1989 issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Pithoragarh as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit to show that late Devi Datt Bhatt was appointed in the scale of Rs. 750-940 as Collection Peon. The respondents have not disputed the appointment letter issued in favour of the deceased Devi Datt Bhatt, who was husband of petitioner no. 2 and father of petitioner no. 1, who died on 2-8-2005. Thus, it would be seen that the deceased had completed continuous service of more than 15 years at the time of his death as Collection Peon in Tehsil Pithoragarh. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the major son of the deceased has been deprived of his legal right to get appointment under the Rules. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is resolved by order dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 were considered and it was held that even a person appointed on a temporary basis though not regularly appointed having put in three years of continuous service in a regular vacancy, his dependent would be entitled for appointment under the said Rules. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the 3 present writ petition is almost identical to the controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. He also conceded that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 31-5-2010 passed therein. I have perused the order dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others wherein Rule 2(a) of the Rules was considered, and I find that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is settled by that order. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of order dated 31-5-2010. The writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 31-5- 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2004 (S/S) Manoj Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground on merits within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP