Compassionate appointments should be treated as regular appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the Late Husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Daily Wager, with the respondent’s Department as back as in 1982, but, later on the services of the Late Husband of the petitioner was retrenched on 24.02.1989; as a consequence thereto, he had agitated his cause before the Labour Court and an award was rendered on 20.08.2010, whereby, his services were directed to be reinstated along with back wages.

2. As against an award dated 20.08.2010, the respondent had preferred a Writ Petition No.2030 of 2011, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011. Consequent to the affirmation of an award dated 20.08.2010 with the dismissal of writ petition on 28.09.2011, the Late Husband of the petitioner had sought to join his services by submitting a letter on 17.10.2011. But, unfortunately as the destiny would have instore the Husband of the petitioner met with the sad demise on 24.10.2011.

3. But the death of the Late Husband of the petitioner on 24.10.2011, would have no bearing owing to the fact, that as a consequence of an award dated 20.08.2010, with its affirmation by the judgment of the Writ Court on 28.09.2011 he would be deemed to have been reinstated into the service and would be treated as to be a member of service. It is because of this reason that the petitioner who applied for the grant of compassionate appointment was granted a compassionate appointment on 07.04.2022. But, however the respondents for the reasons best known are treating the said appointment of the petitioner as to be a Daily Wager and her service benefits as payable to the regular employee, as against the post for which she was appointed on a compassionate grounds has not been paid. Consequently, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying 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 and/or,

(iv) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The petitioner has come up with the case that under the Service Rules dealing with the aspects of compassionate appointments the Rules itself do not contemplate grant of an appointment on an ad-hoc or on temporary basis and even as per the Judicial precedents any appointment which is made on compassionate ground that would be treated as to be a regular appointment. This aspect has been considered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions with a leading Writ Petition No.640 of 2021, “Rakesh Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others”, which was based on the earlier judgments, the writ petition was allowed by the judgment of 11.06.2021.

5. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the judgment rendered by this Court on 11.06.2021, was put to challenge by the State in a Special Appeal which too has been dismissed and the judgment has attained its finality. This is a fact admitted by the respondents counsel.

6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition to would too stand disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 11.06.2021, with a writ of mandamus being issued to the respondent to comply with the directives given in Paragraph 10 of the said judgment so far it relates to the petitioner.

7. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.