Appointments made on compassionate ground should be considered regular appointments, not on a daily basis, as per consistent precedents of the Courts.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the persons, who are claiming a writ of mandamus, whereby they have prayed for commanding the respondents for regularizing their services, as a consequence of their appointment which was under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, though on a daily wage basis, which is contrary to the rules, and as per the law laid down by the Courts, in that regard.

2. Since all these writ petitions engage a common question of facts and law, hence for the purposes of brevity, with the consent for the counsel for the parties, they are being decided together. Short facts which are being dealt with in respect of each case are as follows:-

(A) In Writ Petition No.640 of 2021, "Rakesh Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", the petitioner had come up with the case, that his father, who was appointed with the respondents as a daily wager i.e. with the PWD, Dugadda, Pauri Garhwal, was later his services were put into a work charge establishment on 26.11.1988, and while discharging his services, in the work charge establishment, he met with the sad demise on 22.07.2009, after rendering of about 21 years of satisfactory and unblemished service. Since the sole bread-winner of the family i.e. late father of the petitioner has died, the petitioner had applied for the grant of compassionate appointment, under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the same was favourably considered and ultimately the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as "Beldar", but though on daily wages basis on 22.04.2010. The contention of the petitioner, before this Court is that, ever since then, he is regularly working as a daily wager on the post of "Beldar", and his claim for regularization, which he has prayed for, by filing a representation on 21.01.2021, is pending consideration and no decision has been taken on the same, as such, as of now by the respondents.

(B) In Writ Petition No.642 of 2021, "Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", the petitioner has come up with a case in the writ petition is that his father, who was initially appointed with the PWD, Dugadda, Pauri Garhwal, as a daily wager employee, was later on also placed in the work charge establishment, on 26.11.1988, on the post of "Marg Anurakshak", and ever since then he had an unblemished service record, and while in harness, the father of the petitioner has met with the sad demise on 21.10.2010, after rendering of 22 years of satisfactory service. The petitioner's contention, before this Court is that he had applied for being granted appointment on compassionate grounds by filing an appropriate application, and considering the application and the petitioner's eligibility, for the post, based on the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner was given an appointment, on 26.04.2011, on the post of "Marg Anurakshak". His contention in the writ petition is that ever since then he is working satisfactorily with the respondents, and has an unblemished service record as s daily wager, but his claim for regularization of services, based on the representation dated 22.01.2021, has not yet been considered, and he is being deprived with an equivalence of service benefits as it had being paid to the regular employee.

(C) In Writ Petition No.643 of 2021, "Sanjeev Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", the petitioner had come up with a case, that the late petitioner's father, who was working as a "Beldar" on a daily wages basis in PWD, Dugadda, Pauri Garhwal, after rendering the satisfactory and unblemished service was placed in a work charge establishment, on 01.11.1992, and there he had worked, in the said capacity till he met with the sad demise on 05.11.2011, after rendering of about 15 years of continuous and unblemished service. The petitioner's contention in this w