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 appointment under dying-in-harness rules. Relevant portion of Santosh Kumar Mishras case (supra) is reproduced as under:

" (7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad (supra), for stressing his submission that the petitioners father would be deemed to have been a regular Government servant in view of the fact that his appointment has been converted into workcharge employee in pursuance of the scheme approved by the apex Court. He further submitted that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Pushp Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, reported in 1991 (18) ALR 591, the petitioner is entitled for getting appointment. In this case, the husband of Smt. Pushp Lata was working as a Paid Apprentice. The plea that he was not a regular

employee although he had been working in the department for the last 17 years was not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness rules was rejected by the Court and the directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner (Smt. Pushp Lata) according to her qualification relying upon this case, the writ petition filed by Smt. Maya Dei v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1998 (79) FLR 608, was allowed in which the High Court found that the petitioners husband in that case has satisfactorily worked for about 10 years until his death and though he may be a daily wager, the petitioner can be accommodated on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2187 (All) : (2000) 1 UPLBEC (Alld.) (Sum.) 15, the benefit was given to the temporary appointee as he was working against a substantive vacancy.

(13) From the facts of the case of Thingujam Borejen Meetel (supra) it is clear that the scheme framed by the Government confine the benefits to the regular Government employees as per provisions of para 3 and the workcharge employees are covered by another set of Rules of 1978. It is also obvious that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not have an occasion to consider the question of daily wager or a workcharge employee who has been allowed to continue for a considerable length of service and has legitimate expectation of being regularised against a vacancy it the regular vacancy is not available of the time when he was engaged on daily wages or was converted into a workcharge employee in the workcharge establishment.

(15) In the instant case, also, it reflects that the Supreme Court being alive of the hanging fate of the daily wagers and workcharge employees who have put in considerable length of service approved a scheme for giving regular appointment to such workcharge employees, in the case of Raj Narain Prasad (supra) the workcharge employees are said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document