DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been settled by this Court, accordingly, with the consent of parties. I proceed to decide the writ petition of the admission stage.

2. The petitioners father was a workcharge employee who expired on 11-9-2001. After the death of his father, petitioner has applied for her appointment under dying-in-harness rules, but, petitioners application for appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been rejected on the ground that employees working on workcharge basis are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the husband of the petitioner has worked for about 25 years, he should deemed to be working against regular vacancy and he will be entitled for pension which is admissible to a regular employee. Assuming the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that petitioners father has worked on work charge basis, in view of the law laid down by this Court in a case reported in (2002) UPLBEC 337, Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P. and others, the petitioner shall be entitled for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document