Compassionate appointments should always be substantive and regular.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. There is a delay of 21 days’ in preferring the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has no serious objection against the delay condonation application.

3. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, delay condonation application no. 01 of 2023 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 181 of 2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition in terms of judgment dated 11.06.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 640 of 2021 (Rakesh Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) and thereby directing the respondents to comply with the directives given in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, so far as it relates to the petitioner.

5. In the writ petition, the petitioner – respondent, herein, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case.

(ii) To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to treat the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a regular one and grant her such consequential benefits as would have accrued to her being a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules and

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post of her appointment since 12.04.2017.”

6. Brief facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that late husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with the appellant Department in the year 1982 but, later on, he was retrenched on 24.02.1989. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, on 20.08.2010, passed an award in favour of him directing his reinstatement in service along with back wages. Against the said award, the employer / appellants, herein, preferred a Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011. Consequent thereto, late husband of the petitioner – respondent, herein, sought to join his services by submitting a letter on 17.10.2011 but, unfortunately, before he could join his service, he died on 24.10.2011. Thereafter, petitioner – respondent, herein, approached the appellant Department for grant of compassionate appointment but the appellant Department rejected her claim, on the ground that her husband had not joined his duties, pursuant to the award dated 20.08.2010, therefore, his status was of a temporary employee. Feeling disgruntled, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPSS No. 1972 of 2013 before this Court. This Court on 12.04.2017 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to offer an appointment letter to the petitioner in lieu of death of the husband of the petitioner. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant Department preferred a Special Appeal No. 1086 of 2017 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.03.2022. After dismissal of the Special Appeal, the appellant Department issued appointment order vide office memo. dated 07.04.2022 giving appointment to the petitioner – respondent, herein, on daily wage basis. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner – respondent, herein, preferred present writ petition, which was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 11.06.2021 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 640 of 2021. In WPSS No. 640 of 2021 identical controversy was raised. Against the judgment dated 11.06.2021, the State has filed Special Appeal unsuccessfully. The relevant paragraph 10 of the said judgment dated 11.06.2021, in terms whereof writ petition, was disposed of, reads as under :

“10. Based on the aforesaid principle, since the petitioners appointment right from the date of their initial appointment ought to have been made on a regular basis on compassionate grounds and not on the daily basis, hence at this stage, this Co