JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The petitioner’s husband while working in the Forest Department from 1972 to 1994 died in harness. The petitioner, being the widow, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds which has been rejected by an order dated 20th June, 2008/28th May, 2010 on the ground that the petitioner’s husband was not a permanent employee and, therefore, no appointment could be given on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 2. In paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily wager on a temporary basis. It has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner’s husband worked from 1972 to 1994. 3. Rule 2 (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 provides as under : “2. Definition.-In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) “Government servant” means a Government servant employed in connection with the afairs of Uttar Pradesh who – (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” 4. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules indicates that Government servant includes a person who is employed in a permanent capacity or on a temporary basis but regularly appointed, or though not regularly appointed but have put in three years of continuous service in a regular vacancy in such employment. 5. In the light of the aforesaid provision, paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit gives a clear picture that the petitioner’s husband was a daily wager appointed on a temporary basis. Such temporary appointment continued for more than 22 years. Consequently, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the petitioner’s husband was working on a temporary basis on a vacancy. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s husband comes under the category of a government servant. Consequently, a government servant dying in harness is entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974. 7. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s husband comes under the category of a government servant. Consequently, a government servant dying in harness is entitled for an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974. 7. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the basis of her qualification within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.