Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, who died on 29.9.2007 under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness, Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as (“Dying in Harness, Rules, 1974”).

2. The contention of the petitioner is that his father was employed as a daily wager on the post of Forest Guard in the year 1984 in Badaun. In pursuance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, he was getting minimum pay-scale of the pay-scale of the regular employee. On 24.5.2008, the petitioner’s mother had requested respondent to extend the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 to the petitioner, the son of the deceased, and also claimed pension. The Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Badaun, District Badaun wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Badaun dated 3.6.2008 stating therein that Late Sri Ram Pal was working as a daily wager in the minimum of pay-scale, died on 29.9.2007 and since he was working as a daily wager, the dependants of the deceased are not entitled for the benefit of pension and compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment has accordingly been denied. Being aggieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned cousnel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Cousnel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was regularly appointed employee and put three years continuous service therefore, under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 2 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the father of the petitioner was covered under the Government servant and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the compasionate appointment.

4. Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager. He was neither regularly appointed nor his appointment was against the regular vacancy and, therefore, the father of the petitioner was not Government servant as defined under clause (a) of Rule 2 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. She further submitted that Rule 2 (a) (iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and others, (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 304 wherein it has been held that the daily wager not employed in regular vacancy is not a Government servant and not entitled for compassinate appointment. She further submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (8) ADJ 664 (FB) wherein it has been held that dependants of the daily wager or work charge employee, not holding any post either substantive or temporary and not appointed in any regular vacancy; even if he worked for three years before the death not entitled for appointment on compassinate ground.

5. I have considered the rival submissions.

The issue involved is no more res integra. It is not the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was engaged against the regular vacancy following the proper procedure laid down for the recruitment to the post. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the service of his father had ever been regularized. Merely because the father of the petitioner was getting the minimum of pay-scale in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 (supra), the status of the employment will not change. His engagement was a daily wager and on the date of the death he worked as a daily wager. He was not regularly appointed employee against the regular vacancy. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and others (supra) has considered Rule 2 (a) (iii) of the