Hema Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3029 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                     Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1030 of 2021

Hema Devi                                                  .............. Petitioner


                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                          ............. Respondents


Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Indu Sharma and Mr. Hrishek Lakhera,                 Brief Holders     for the
State/respondents.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as a confirmed employees appointed under Dying-in-Harness Rules since his date of initial appointment i.e. 11.09.2014.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him all consequential benefits.

iii). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give her admissible Pay Scale to the petitioner as is being drawn by her other counterpart in the department.

iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take a decision on the representation dated 06.07.2021, moved by the petitioner (Annexure No.5 in this writ petition).

v) Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

vi) To Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of her father, she was given appointment under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, "Dying-in-Harness Rules") on 20.04.2010. Since then, she has been discharging her duties with utmost dedication and sincerity. But, the petitioner is aggrieved that she has not been given status of confirmed employee, for which she is otherwise entitled to in view of the provisions of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

4. It is also the case that identical controversy has already been settled by this Court in WPSS No.75 of 2021, Laxmi Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand and others by its order dated 12.01.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the controversy raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, passed in WPSS No.75 of 2021, Laxmi Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which has been decided in terms of the judgment dated 13.07.2021, passed in WPSS No.675 of 2020 of this Court.

6. Learned State counsel admits that the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in WPSS No.75 of 2021.

7. In view of the above, the instant petition is decided in terms of the order dated 12.01.2021, passed by this Court in WPSS No.75 of 2021.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.08.2021 Sanjay