IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 495 of 2003 (S/B) Smt. Tupri Devi, W/o Late Sri Anand Singh, R/o House No. 131, Vikas Marg, Near Block Office, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttaranchal. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. State of U.P. through Secretary, Public Works Department, Sachivalaya, Lucknow. 2. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. 3. Superintending Engineer, Pubic Works Department, 36/Va. Varisht, Public Works Department, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal 4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, (Mountain Range), Pauri District Pauri Garhwal. 5. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Public Works Department, Sachivalaya, Dehradun. 6. State Public Service Tribunal, Uttaranchal Dehradun, Through its Registrar, Dehradun. …….. Respondents Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. P.C. Verma, J. RAJEEV GUPTA C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the judgment dated 21.03.2003 passed by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttaranchal at Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 203/T/2002. 2. The petitioner was seeking a direction to the respondents for regularisation of her service w.e.f. 09.08.1985. As the petitioner’s husband, who was working as a driver under respondents Nos. 2 to 4 2 died in harness on 16.02.1984, the petitioner was given a compassionate appointment as a Beldar on muster roll daily wages w.e.f. 09.08.1985. Though the petitioner submitted several representations for her regularisation, the Department regularised her Services w.e.f. 01.03.1996 when other similarly placed employees’ services were also regularised. 3. The submissions advanced on behalf of he petitioner did not find favour with the Tribunal leading to the dismissal of the petitioner’s claim petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in not giving due weight to the petitioner’s submissions and in dismissing the petitioner’s claim petition. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on muster roll daily wages. Her services were regularised by the Department along with other similarly placed persons w.e.f. 01.03.1996. 7. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings given in the impugned order, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 8. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. (P.C. Verma, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 10.02.2006 10.02.2006 G