The main legal point established is the entitlement of a work charge employee under Dying in Harness Rules and the obligation of the respondents to consider such appointment and provide the entitled benefits.

Rule, Respondents waive service. Both the parties agreed that the matter may be decided finally.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules and to pay the petitioner back salary due pension and gratuity with interest within the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court.

(2) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(3) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner was working under the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal, respondent NO.3 on the post of Beldar on daily wage basis since 1977 and he worked as daily wage employee up to the year 1979.

4. Thereafter the husband of the petitioner was taken as work charge employee on the post of Beldar since 1980 and he worked as such upto the year 1993 i.e. upto 5.6.1993. Thus the husband of the petitioner worked for about a period of 16 years.

5. Petitioner has submitted that her husband died on 5.6.1993 leaving behind the following heirs and legal representatives :-

(1) Mst. Mangala Devi

(2) Gabar Singh

(3) Jaspal Singh

(4) Shish pal Singh

(5) Digpal Singh

6. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3 has prepared a seniority list of work charge employees in the year 1992 in which the name of the husband of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 10 which has fully established that the husband of the petitioner had worked on daily wage since 21.10.1976 up to 20.11.1980 and thereafter from 21.11.80 he worked as a work charge employee.

7. By way of the amendment dated 12.12.2001 the petitioner has made the following averments in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The same are quoted below ;-

Paragraph 6- "That it is relevant to mention it here that one Trilok Singh was engaged in Muster roll within construction division P.W.D. Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal in the year 1984 and was then engaged on work charged basis in the year 1989 and then after 7 years of service he was made regular but the husband of the petitioner even after putting in 16 years of service as a work charged employee was not made regular by the department arbitrarily. The said Mr. Trilok Singh died in the year 1997 and after his death, his son was given employment under dying in harness rules. Amendment carried out in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dt. 12.12.2001."

8. The petitioner has further submitted that Harsh Mani was also appointed on daily wage employee in the year 1973 and he was taken on work charge in the year 1989 and died in the year 1993. His son was given the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.

9. The petitioner has st1ited that he has applied soon after the death of the husband of the petitioner. She has filed an application for the appointment of the elder son of the petitioner under the dying in harness Rules.

10. The petitioner has submitted that according to the government order dated 18.6.1991 he was entitled for the benefits of dying in harness rules which are quoted below :-

HINDI TYPING

11. The petitioner has stated that by virtue of another govt. order dated 16.3.1996, the Chief Engineer again directed that the work charge employees who died in service and had completed more than 10 years of

HINDI TYPING

service are entitled for the benefit of the rule. The said notification is quoted below ;-

HINDI TYPING

12. According to the petitioner his case is fully covered by the aforesaid govt. orders. He has moved an application before the Superintending Engineer on 16.7.1994 and reminder were sent on the following dates :-

1] 16.7.1994

2] 28.1.1995

3] 7.5.1996

13. Counsel for the petitioner Sri C.D. Bahuguna has submitted that nothing was don