JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Sidhartha Bisht, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned brief holder for the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s father was a Class-IV employee working in the Forest Department and died in harness on 01st June, 2005 after putting 30 years of service. The petitioner, being the unmarried daughter of the deceased, filed an application on 18th June, 2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds. This application remained pending and, accordingly, the petitioner filed a writ petition No.1489 of 2005 (S/S), which was allowed by a judgment dated 13.04.2010 with the following directions: “In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made aforesaid and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.” 3. The court directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made by the Court. The court found that the petitioner (sic, petitioner’s father) was working for a period of 30 years and further found that the petitioner (sic, petitioner’s father)was regularized pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & other Vs. Putti Lal 2006 (9) SCC 337. The court further held that the order of regularization made it clear that the petitioner’s father was working on a substantive vacancy. The court also found that the petitioner’s father was working either ina regular vacancy or in a substantive vacancy. The observation of the court in its judgment dated 13.04.2010 is extracted hereunder:- “The petitioner was a daily wager and was regularized in the year 2004. Consequently, sub-clause (i) of Rule 2 (a) would come into picture, namely, that he was employed in a permanent capacity.It has been alleged by the respondents that the petitioner’s father did not accept the order of regularization and he continued to work as a Daily Wager. Consequently, sub-clause (i) of Rule 2 (a) would come into picture, namely, that he was employed in a permanent capacity.It has been alleged by the respondents that the petitioner’s father did not accept the order of regularization and he continued to work as a Daily Wager. In that scenario, sub-clause (iii) of Rule 2 (a) would come into effect, namely, though not regularly appointed, had put in three years of continuous service in regular vacancy. The reasoning adopted is on account of the fact that a person who had worked for 30 years continuously indicates that the work was of a perennial nature and was not intermittent in nature and, in that light, there would be a deemed presumption that the daily wager was working in a regular vacancy or in a substantive vacancy.” And “The ceun finds that the petitioner was also regularized by the respondents by an order dated 05/02/2004 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, wherein the Supreme court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the daily wagers who had been working continuously. The regularization order clearly indicates that the petitioner was being absorbed in a permanent capacity. The order of regularization makes it clear that the petitioner’s father had been working on a substantive vacancy.” 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the court, the respondents reconsidered the matter and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is married, and therefore, is not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The authority concerned further held that the petitioner’s father was a daily wager and, consequently, the petitioner’s case could not be considered for compassionate appointment since her father was not a permanent employee. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a contempt application No.199 of 2010. The contempt court, while dismissing the contempt application, gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.05.2010 by which her application was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 28th May, 2010 and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds according to her educational qualification. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 28th May, 2010 and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give an appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds according to her educational qualification. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is constrained to observe that the Divisional Forest Officer, authority concerned has not applied its mind and has not considered the observations made in the judgment dated 13th April, 2010. The Divisional Forest Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner is married. In this regard, Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) defines the word ‘family’. For facility, the same is extracted hereunder:- “2. Definitions. -In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) ................. (b) ................. (c) “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) Wife or husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters; (iv) If the deceased was unmarried Government servant, brother, unmarried sister and widowed mother dependant on the deceased Government servant”. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that unmarried daughter is included in the ‘family’ of the deceased and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the instant case, the petitioner was unmarried on the date when the petitioner’s father died and was also unmarried on the date when the petitioner moved the application for consideration of her appointment on compassionate grounds. It is settled law that the status of the applicant has to be considered on the date when the applicant moves the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The law does not contemplate that the authority will sit over the matter and keep the application pending for years and on the date of the consideration of the application will consider the status of the applicant, namely, as to whether she is married or unmarried. It is not expected that the petitioner is required to remain unmarried for a long period if her application is not decided by the authority concerned. It is not expected that the petitioner is required to remain unmarried for a long period if her application is not decided by the authority concerned. In the light of the aforesaid, the ground taken by the respondents that the petitioner is now married and therefore is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds is patently misconceived and cannot be sustained. 8. The authority has rejected the application of the petitioneron theqround that her father was a daily rated employee and was not a permanent employee and, therefore, the petitioner could not be considered for compassionate appointment. This court is of the opinion that it was no longer open to the authority to come to this conclusion or to give a finding, in as much as, the stage had passed and the court in its judgment dated 13.04.2010 had directed the authority concerned to consider the application in the light of the observations made in the judgment. A perusal of the judgment dated 13th April, 2010 clearly indicates that the petitioner’s father was working on a substantive vacancy and the order of regularization indicated that the petitioner was absorbed in a permanent capacity. These findings of the court in its judgment dated 13.04.2010 has become final and has not been questioned by the respondents before a higher forum. The said findings are binding upon the respondents, especially the Divisional Forest Officer, the competent authority who could not supercede the findings of the court by its own finding. Such action on the part of the Divisional Forest Officer is ex-facie contemptuous. 9. The learned brief holder for the respondents has brought to the notice of the court a Full Bench decision of this court in Uttarakhand Van Vikash Nigam & another Vs. Suresh Chandra Auli in Special Appeal No.7 of 2011 vide judgment dated 21.12.2011 wherein the Full Bench held that the dependents of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of “Government servant” as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 and, consequently, are not liable to be given an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules irrespective of the number of years such an employee had put in service prior to his death. In the light of this Full Bench decision, the learned brief holder for the State submitted that the judgment of the court dated 13.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1489 of 2005 (S/S) is deemed to have been impliedly overruled and is no longer a good law. The submission of the learned brief holder for the respondents is patently erroneous. The decision of the Full Bench is based on the underlying reason that the daily wager was not holding any post nor was working in a substantive or in a regular vacancy. Consequently, on that footing, the Full Bench held that the daily wager who has put in long years in service, but not under a regular vacancy was not entitled to be given relief as he was not a Government servant. The Full Bench decision is distinguishable and is not applicable in the present case in as much as the learned Single Judge in its decision dated 13.04.2010 has given a specific finding that the petitioner’s father was working in a substantive vacancy. Once the petitioner’s father was found to be working in a substantive vacancy, he is deemed to be a Government servant. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, the reasoning given by the Divisional Forest Officer in the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and a positive mandamus is issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani respondent no.1 to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner under the Dying-in-Harness Rules as per the petitioner’s educational qualification within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Since the petitioner has been running for her legitimate claim since the year 2005, this court imposes a cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the Divisional Forest Officer respondent no.1, which shall be paid to the petitioner within the same period. In the event, the said amount is not paid, it would be open to the petitioner to move an application in the present writ petition for the recovery of the amount.