Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2777
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Kusum Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
WPSS 38 / 2025
SL. No.
Dat e
Office Not es, report s, order s or proceedings or direct ions and Regist rar ’s order wit h Signat ures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
1 W PSS/ 1 6 5 3 / 2 0 2 3 Wit h W PSS N os. 5 4 0 / 2 0 2 5 , 1 7 8 / 2 0 2 4 , 1 7 9 / 2 0 2 4 , 2 3 9 / 2 0 2 4 , 2 4 8 / 2 0 2 4 , 3 8 / 2 0 2 5 , 1 9 3 / 2 0 2 5 , 1 9 4 / 2 0 2 5 , 2 0 4 / 2 0 2 5 , 4 1 8 / 2 0 2 5 , 4 1 9 / 2 0 2 5 , 4 3 6 / 2 0 2 5 , 4 3 7 / 2 0 2 5 , 4 3 8 / 2 0 2 5 a nd 5 4 2 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 540/2025 and 438/2025. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisth, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. . Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed on compassionate ground as daily wager on account of death of the breadwinners in their family, who were serving in work charged establishment in different engineering departments of the State. 2. According to petitioners, they have served for sufficiently long period of time; therefore, they are entitled to be given regular appointment, but their claim is not being considered. 3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1653 of 2023 alone are being discussed and considered. Reliefs sought in WPSS No. 1653 of 2023 are as follows: “1. To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. 2. To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to treat the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a regular one and grant him such consequential benefits as would have accrued to him being
4 a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules. 3. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post of his appointment since 01.06.2015.” . Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the father/mother of the petitioners were employed in work charge establishment under the State Government and they had become due for regularisation in view of long services rendered as work charged employee; however, due to their untimely death, they could not acquire status of a regular employee and petitioners were given compassionate appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have served for the last more than ten years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a Government Order dated 04.12.2002, issued by Additional Secretary, Irrigation Department to Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. Para 10 of the said Government Order provides that in case of death of work charged employees who were eligible for regularisation, their dependent family member may be appointed as daily wager. 6. It is the case of petitioners that since petitioners were appointed as daily wager in terms of the policy decision taken by State Government, therefore, their appointment cannot be said to be irregular. It is further their case that after rendering long, continuous and satisfactory service as daily wager, petitioners have earned the right for regularisation. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021, for contending that appointment given on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular. 8. Per contra, learned State
