Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/724/2021 on 30 June, 2021
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.724 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The petitioner of the present writ petition has
prayed for 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 her date of initial appointment i.e.
14.03.2011.
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay her 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 06.04.2021, filed by the
petitioner (Annexure No.08 in this writ
petition).
v. Issue any other suitable order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
vi. To award the cost of the writ petition
to the petitioner."
The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, who
was appointed with respondent no.5, on 26.12.1988
on the post of Beldar/Anurakshak, and later on
placed in a work charge establishment on
31.08.2001. But unfortunately, during the service
period he met with the sad demise on 20.10.2010
and as a consequence thereto the petitioner, who is
the widow of the deceased employee has raised a
claim before the respondent (competent authority),
to be considered for compassionate appointment,
which was processed by the respondents and she
was ultimately appointed under the Harness Rules,
by virtue of an order dated 14.03.2011, but
however, the appointment which was made under
the Dying-in-Harness Rules in relation to the
petitioner, was made on the basis of a daily rated
employee.
The petitioner has come up with the case that
though she was appointed as a daily rated employee
on 14.03.2011, but later on her services too had
been placed in a work charge establishment w.e.f.
10.05.2012. She has submitted that she has been
consistently approaching the respondents, that since
her initial appointment of 14.03.2011 was made
under the Dying-in-Harness, it ought to have been
on regular basis and not as a daily rated employee,
she contends that she has submitted the
representation and the last representation being that
of 06.04.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that this Court has already considered the
issue in a writ petition being Writ Petition No.640
of 2021 (S/S) Rakesh Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand, decided by the judgment of
11.06.2021 based on the various pronouncement of
this Court; as well as that of Allahabad High Court
and the writ petition was disposed of directing the
competent authority to take a decision on the
representation for the purposes of grant of a regular
status to the employees, who had been appointed
on compassionate grounds.
This aspect of the matter, that the issue
stands covered by the aforesaid judgment of
11.06.2021, which was rendered by this Court, in a
bunch of writ petitions with a leading Writ Petition
No.640 of 2021 (S/S) Rakesh Singh vs. State of
Uttarakhand, is a fact not disputed by the Addl.
C.S.C.
Hence, this writ petition, too would stand
disposed of in terms of the judgment of 11.06.2021
and the respondents are directed to proceed
accordingly.
Subject to the above observations, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.06.2021
Arti
`
