Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/617/2021 on 7 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 617 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. T.S. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General
for the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner has preferred this Writ
Petition, praying for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner, treating him to be a
permanent employee, having been appointed
under the Dying-in-Harness Rules w.e.f. 10th
December, 2009, and to pay all the consequential
benefits, accruing thereto, to him.
At the initial stage, when the Writ Petition
was taken up, the brief facts, which were
reflected from the Writ Petition was that, after
the sad demise of the father of the petitioner, the
petitioner was appointed on compassionate
grounds as Beldar/Peon, on daily wage basis by
an order dated 10th December, 2009. Later on,
his services as a Daily Wager, was placed into
work charge establishment by an order dated 15th
May, 2012, and accordingly, he is discharging
his services in the work charge establishment as
Beldar/Peon.
When the Writ Petition was argued at the
initial stage, a doubt was created by the learned
Standing Counsel to the effect as to whether, at
all, the petitioner's case would stand covered by
the decision rendered by this Court in a bunch of
Writ Petition with the leading Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 640 of 2021, Rakesh Singh Vs. State
of Uttarakhand and others, wherein, the
identical issue which was decided was, that any
appointment, which is made on a compassionate
ground, has had to be treated as to be a
permanent employment and not as a daily rated
employee. This judgment was rendered on the
basis of the various pronouncements, which had
been rendered by the Allahabad High Court, as
well as this Court. The bunch of Writ Petition
was adjudicated by the judgment of 11th June,
2021, directing the respondents to take a decision
on the representation of the petitioner, therein
treating their services as a regular employees
after having been appointed on compassionate
ground.
In order to clarify the said doubt, which
was raised by the learned Standing Counsel that
the petitioner was not appointed on
compassionate grounds, hence, the parties to the
Writ Petition were directed to file the
supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the
document to show that his appointment was
made on compassionate grounds.
The petitioner in compliance thereto has
filed a supplementary affidavit on 28th June,
2021, annexing therewith the copy of an order of
his appointment as was passed by the Executive
Engineer of the Public Works Department,
Ranikhet, wherein, it clearly specifies that the
appointment of the petitioner had been made on
compassionate grounds, as a daily wager
employee.
In order to further substantiate his
argument, he has also placed on record the
seniority list, which was issued by the
respondents in the month of May, 2008, and the
name of the petitioner appears at S.No.5 and in
the column 10 of the seniority list, his nature of
appointment has been shown as to be a
compassionate appointment.
In view of the aforesaid two documents on
record, there is no doubt as such, which is
prevailing now that the petitioner's appointment
which was made on 10th December, 2009, was
on a compassionate ground. In that eventuality,
if the petitioner's appointment happens to be on
compassionate grounds, his case would be
squarely covered by the judgment which was
rendered in the bunch of Writ Petition with
leading Writ Petition (S/S) No. 640 of 2021,
Rakesh Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
others.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition too would
stand disposed of under the same terms and
principles, which had been laid down in the said
judgment which was rendered by this Court, as
rendered on 11th June, 2021, and the respondents
are directed to proceed accordingly for deciding
the claim of the petitioner, for treating him as a
regular employee after having being appointed
on compassionate grounds. The decision on the
representation of the petitioner would be taken
by the respondents within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of the
certified copy of this judgment.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 07.07.2021
Shiv
