Anju Kukreti vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 5008 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPSS No.3236 of 2017
                                      With
                                      WPSS No.2429 of 2017
                                      WPSS No.3237 of 2017
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Tarun Prakash Takuli, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Anjali Bhargawa, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

These are three matters, which are connected together and listed on supplementary affidavit, which had been preferred by the petitioners, placing on record the judgment which was rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1264 of 2020 Anju Kukreti vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, settling down the principles as to what would be the status of appointment which are made on compassionate grounds, whether they could be treated as to be daily wager or it would be a regular appointment.

Based on the judgment rendered by this Court on 20.10.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had also considered the issue in yet another bunch of writ petition with leading Writ Petition (S/S) No.1740 of 2020 Vishnu Kshetri vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, alongwith connected matters and an identical view was taken by the Court, in its judgment on 01.10.2021.

Apart from it, this Court had quite elaborately dealt with the issue, that any appointment, which are made on the compassionate grounds under Dying-in-Harness Rules of 1974, as it stood adopted in its applicability to the State of Uttarakhand, this Court by the judgment dated 11.06.2021, had held that in any appointments, which are made on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974, they are to be treated as to be a regular employee and accordingly, the directions have been issued in para 10 and 11 of the said judgment, which was rendered in leading Writ Petition (S/S) No.640 of 2021 Rakesh Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.

Factually, in each of the connected writ petitions, the petitioners have come with the case for example in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3236 of 2017, the case of the petitioner is that his father, who was working as Pump Operator, after being placed under the work charge establishment on 15.04.1987, had met with the sad demise on 28.05.2011, and subsequent thereto, on the application submitted by the petitioner, he was appointed as daily wager skilled employee by an order of 01.08.2011.

In the connected Writ Petition (S/S) No.2429 of 2019, the mother of the petitioner who was serving with the respondents as Sweeper, she had met with the sad demise on 28.02.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner's claim was considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and was granted with an appointment as daily wager on 02.03.2006.

In the third Writ Petition (S/S) No.3237 of 2017, the father of the petitioner, who was then working as Beldar, had met with the sad demise on 04.12.2009 and consequent thereto, the petitioner was considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, and he was appointed as daily wager unskilled employee on 22.12.2009.

This aspect for compassionate appointment, and the provisions made for the aforesaid purpose, which is being made under Welfare Legislation under the compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974, is no more an issue, which is res-integra. In fact, it has been settled by this Court as well as Allahabad High Court, in the judgments, which has already been referred above, and as such the same judicial principles would apply herein and it is a fact not disputed by the respondents' counsel, that the wider principles laid down by this Court pertaining to the grant of status of daily wager to the appointees, who are appointed under the Harness Rules. In fact it has had to be on regular basis only as it has been settled by this Court.

Hence, these writ petitions too would stand allowed in terms of the judgment of 11.06.2021 and the respondents are accordingly directed to consider the issue of grant of regular status to the petitioners based on the judicial precedents and principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 09.12.2021 Arti