JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The husband of the petitioner was appointed in the work charge establishment by an order of 6th June, 1997 and died in harness on 1st July, 2003. The petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules. Since the application was not decided, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.1378 (S/S) of 2004, which was decided by judgment dated 4th May, 2005, directing the authority to consider the matter for appointment on compassionate grounds. Based on the aforesaid direction of the Court, the respondents issued an appointment letter dated 1st June, 2005 appointing the petitioner on the post of Beldar. It was mentioned in the appointment letter that in the event the appointment letter is against any order of the Government, the appointment order would be quashed. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notice dated 8th August, 2005, i.e., within two months of issuing the appointment letter, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the appointment should not be quashed on the ground that the said appointment was in violation of the Government Order dated 21.11.2000 and 16.09.2002. The petitioner gave a reply and thereafter the authority after considering the entire matter passed the impugned order dated 15th October, 2005, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the cancellation of her appointment letter, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the order of appointment was cancelled on the strength of the Government Order dated 21st November, 2000. A perusal of the said Government Order indicates that initially the Government of U.P. had issued a Government Order dated 26th September, 1990, indicating therein that the heirs of a work charge employee who had worked for more than 10 years in the work charge would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules. Subsequently, the Finance Department of the State Government issued a Government Order dated 1st June, 1995 stopping such practice of appointing a dependant of the deceased, who had worked in the work charge establishment. Subsequently, the Finance Department of the State Government issued a Government Order dated 1st June, 1995 stopping such practice of appointing a dependant of the deceased, who had worked in the work charge establishment. Based on the Government Order of 1st June, 1995, the Government Order dated 21st November, 2000 was issued holding that a dependant of the employee of the work charge establishment would not be given an appointment on compassionate grounds. The said Government Order of 21st November, 2000 was further clarified by a Government Order of 16th September, 2002. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of the Government Order dated 21st November, 2000, the petitioner’s husband working in a work charge establishment was not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The question still remains is whether an employee working in the work charge establishment is a government servant or not. This is on account of the fact that if he is a government servant only then a dependant of that government servant would be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, as provided under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974). Rule 2 (a) defines a government servant. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:- “(a) “Government servant” means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs 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. Explanation.- “Regularly appointed” means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the case may be;” A perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates that a government servant means a servant employed in connection with the affairs of the government who was permanent in such employment or whose appointment was temporary but had been regularly appointed in such appointment or not regularly appointed but had put in three years of continuous service in regular vacancy. As the name suggests work charge establishment is not a regular establishment of the department or of the government and persons appointed in work charge establishment are not governed by the regular rules and service conditions. As the name suggests work charge establishment is not a regular establishment of the department or of the government and persons appointed in work charge establishment are not governed by the regular rules and service conditions. Employees employed in work charge establishment are appointed on exigencies of specified works for which a separate budget is allocated and is not treated as a part of the regular establishment. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear from the averments made in the writ petition, that the petitioner’s husband was not a government servant but was employed in the work charge establishment, and consequently, the Rules of 1974 is not applicable. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.