IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the dependents of daily-wage employees, whose regularization process is underway at the time of their death, may still be entitled to compassionate appointment, emphasizing the need for timely consideration of such claims.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry & Wildlife Division, Pratapgarh dated 05.06.2023, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.

2. The petitioner's mother was engaged on daily-wages as a Sweeper by the Establishment of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry & Wildlife Division, Pratapgarh, respondent No.4 (for short, 'the Divisional Forest Officer') in the month of November, 1984. She served as a daily-wager continuously since the month of November, 1984 and pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.28317-28321 of 2010 dated 02.02.2016 placed on the minimum salary admissible to a Class-IV employee vide order dated 06.03.2016 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. She was in receipt of a monthly salary of Rs.7000/-. It appears that the State Government on 12.09.2016 issued a Government Order regarding regularization of services of daily-wage employees working in various departments of the Government. According to the Government Order dated 12.09.2016, the petitioner's mother was also entitled to be regularized in service. Acting in furtherance of the Government Order above mentioned, the Divisional Forest Officer took proceedings for regularization of daily-wagers employed in his Establishment at Pratapgarh. He directed a medical examination of the daily-wagers to be undertaken. The medical examination was conducted, because the daily-wagers did not have any proof of their age on 08.07.2022. The name of such daily-wagers, who had to undergo medical examination to determine their age, figures in an order of 08.07.2022 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, which is on record. The name of the petitioner’s mother in the said order. Before the petitioner's mother's case for regularization could come to fruition, she died on 27.01.2023. After her demise, the petitioner approached the Divisional Forest Officer requesting for an appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules of 1974'). The basis of the petitioner's claim was the penurious condition in which the deceased employee's family were placed, after her demise. The petitioner moved an application for the purpose to the Divisional Forest Officer on 22.05.2023. The deceased employee has left behind six members in her family, including the petitioner, all of whom are her dependents.

3. It is the petitioner's case that he is educationally qualified for appointment under the Rules of 1974 as he has earned his matriculation certificate from the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the examination of 2005. The petitioner's father put in an affidavit of 'No Objection' about the petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment. The petitioner says that his mother was working regularly as a daily-wager since the year 1984 until her demise on 27.01.2023 and had repeatedly requested for regularization of her services in accordance with different Government Orders, that were issued on the subject, directing regularization of daily-wagers, who had worked for a very long period of time. The petitioner's mother worked for as long as a period of 39 years, serving as a daily-wager and by all standards under the Government Orders issued from time to time she was entitled to be regularized as the petitioner says. It is the petitioner's case that going by the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as a one-time measure, daily-wagers, working for a period of 10 years or more, were held entitled to be regularized. The petitioner's mother's case was eminently fit for consideration.

4. The petitioner prays that there is no other breadwinner in the family and after his mother's demise, they are plunged in penury. He, therefore, had a case for consideration under the Rules of 1974. By the