The definition of 'Government Servant' under the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974 does not include part-time employees, and judgments of other High Courts may only have persuasive value.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Before venturing to answer the questions raised by the counsel for the petitioner certain admitted factual backdrop of the present case are necessarily required to be referred to so as to answer the claim, to the question about the entitlement of the petitioner to be considered for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.

1. It is not a fact in dispute, that the late father of the petitioner was appointed with the respondents’ department as back as on 08.01.1988, if the reference made to the letter of appointment, if that itself is taken into consideration it clearly spells out that the appointment of the father of the petitioner was as a “Part-time Tube well Operator”.

2. That while working in the said capacity of being a Part-time Tube well Operator, the late father of the petitioner was met with the sad demise on 22.09.2009.

3. That after the sad demise of the father, the petitioner had applied for grant of compassionate appointment, on 10.01.2012, raising his claim to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. But however, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment, was not considered, in his favour and the same was rejected by the order dated 10.01.2012 and 12.01.2012.

5. As against the aforesaid orders of rejection of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner had applause/approached the writ court by preferring a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 465 of 2012. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has portrayed the status of his late father, as to be that of being a Government Servant, as defined under the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974, and that was pleaded in the context and on a premise that the late father of the petitioner would be treated as to be “Temporary Employee” in order to attract the provision of Rules of 1974.

6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 10.05.2013, had rather observed, that it was rather rendered incapacitated due to lack of proper assistance extended by the counsel for the respondents in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court on the subject, the Writ petition was allowed, the impugned order of rejection was quashed and the matter was remitted to be reconsidered.

7. This issue arising from the judgment dated 10.05.2013 of the learned Single Judge, was taken before the Division Bench by the State by preferring a Special Appeal No. 300 of 2013, State of Uttarakhand and others vs. Bhupendra Singh, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court and the Court had dismissed the writ petition, with liberty left open for the petitioner to file a writ petition a fresh, because during the pendency of the Special Appeal, a new facts were pleaded by the petitioner on the basis of the order of 26.10.1998, hence he was granted liberty to file afresh writ petition, consequently, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned rejection order dated 10.01.2012 and 12.01.2012 issued by the respondents.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.1998 issued by the respondents.

III. Issue a writ, order or directing in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

IV. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

V. Award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner.”

8. There are three-fold arguments, which have been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that his late father, would very well fall to be within the definition of the Government Servant as provided under the Rules of 1974, by referring that he was a tempor