COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1405/2004 Smt. Prema Joshi …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri Manav Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10th June, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.2.2004, Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 2. Petitioner’s husband late Sri Govind Ballabh Joshi was working as daily wager labourer in the forest department w.e.f. 1.1.1988, who died in harness on 30.7.2003 and he is survived by his widow/petitioner and three minor children. After the death her husband, the petitioner applied vide his application dated 14.8.2003 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Her application for compassionate appointment was rejected vide the 2 impugned order dated 4.2.2004 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was a daily wager and was not working as a regular employee of the department and, therefore, the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules could not be extended to the petitioner. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was working in the office of the respondents since 1.1.1988 and had put in more than 15 years of satisfactory service until his death. Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 defines the ‘Government Servant’, according to which the ‘Government Servant’ means a Government Servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who:- (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. 4. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner’s husband was not appointed against any regular vacancy. But looking to the fact that the petitioner’s husband had put in more than 15 years of continuous service on daily wages and, therefore, the presumption would be that such an employee would be entitled for being treated to have been continuing against regular vacancy. Moreover, the main object of the rule is to provide an employment to the family of the person who died in harness and the main purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is to 3 mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Therefore, respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation/direction. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 10.6.2008 Prabodh