Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSS/ 1597/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the

State.

2. According to petitioner, his father was employed with forest department who died while still in service, on 17.01.2017. His further contention is that he is entitled for compassionate appointment; he made application for such appointment; however, his request was not acceded to. By means of this writ petition, following reliefs have been sought

by petitioner:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the impugned order no. 5587/1-14 Pithoragarh, dated 18, March, 2025 passed by respondent no. 3, by which the respondent no. 3 has informed the petitioner that presently there is no provision for giving appointment to a dependent of daily wager under dying in harness rules. (Annexure no.

1 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under dying in harness rules on regular basis, else the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the same cannot

be compensated by any means.

3. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner’s father was engaged as a daily wager in the year 1981 and his services were never regularised and he died as a daily wager,

therefore, as per the applicable rules, petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. He refers to a judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011, where following was held:

“27. This Court therefore holds that the dependants of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of a "Government Servant" as defined under Section 2 (a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules. Hence, they are not liable to be given employment on compassionate ground under the Rules, irrespective of the numbers of the years such an employee had put in service, prior to his death.”

4. In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Full Bench, no direction can be issued to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, as per applicable rules.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in place of his father in the year 2019, having regard to the precarious financial condition of the family, but his engagement was subsequently discontinued in 2024. He submits that in view of services rendered by petitioner, he has better claim for compassionate appointment.

6. This Court do not find any substance in the said submission. Merely because petitioner was engaged as a daily wager will not improve his case for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.