IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a deceased government servant's continuous service qualifies his dependents for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has moved this Court by filing this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.03.2017, annexure-8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.2-SDM Dhari, District Nainital and further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as applicable in Uttarakhand) (for short “The Rules, 1974”) on a suitable post as per his educational qualification.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father was earlier engaged with the respondent no. 1 as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1994. The father of the petitioner moved the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 for regularization of his service along with other similarly situated persons. The said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 30.07.1998. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in that writ petition for regularization and allowed them to continue as Collection Amin with the respondent-department. Aggrieved by the said order passed by learned Single Judge, the Special Appeal was filed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh being Special Appeal No.481 of 1999 which was transferred to this Court after creation of the State of Uttarakhand and the High Court Uttarakhand at Nainital. The Special Appeal was re-numbered as Special Appeal No.119 of 2008. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 and the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 30.07.1998 was affirmed.

4. Pursuant to the dismissal of the Special Appeal moved by the State Government against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the petitioners in that writ petition were regularized by the State Government on the post of Collection Amin vide order dated 10.09.2010. Name of the father of the petitioner was also there in the order dated 10.09.2010 at S.No.5. But before he could reap the fruits of litigation, petitioner father expired on 10.11.2009 bereaving his family. After regularization of the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 (Collection Amins), petitioner’s mother moved an application on 12.05.2011 requesting the respondents to give compassionate appointment to her son i.e. the petitioner and subsequently, when the said application was not given any heed, petitioner himself also moved an application on 06.08.2016. The said application remained pending consideration with the respondent-department, which compelled the petitioner to file the writ petition being WPSS No.221 of 2017 (Ghanshyam Singh Bisht vs. District Magistrate, Nainital & others). The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2017 directing the respondent no.1 i.e. District Magistrate to take a decision on the application for compassionate appointment moved by the petitioner dated 06.08.2016 within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of that order.

5. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 14.03.2017 passed by S.D.M. Dhari, District Nainital. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only ground which is revealed from the impugned rejection order is that since the father of the petitioner could not have been regularized, pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was subsequently, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner was not given the compassionate appointment for the reas