Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 568 (UTT)

RAJENDRA SINGH JEENA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-11

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. H.C. Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 3. The father of the petitioner was working on a daily rated basis in the Forest Department since 1978 and died while in harness in the year 2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was minor at that time, he gained majority in the year 2015. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in a writ petition being WPSS No. 1586 of 2015 wherein directions were given to consider the representation of the petitioner and subsequently the representation was filed by the petitioner and the same was rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kendriya Tarai Forest Division, Haldwani District-Nainital by passing a speaking order on 08.09.2015 wherein he has given the details, the number of days father of the petitioner had worked in the department. The father of the petitioner had worked for 59 days in the year 1985 and thereafter his engagement is in the year 1994 for a period of 62 days, in the year 1995 he worked for 242 days, in the year 1996 he worked for 31 days. There is no engagement of the father of petitioner in the year 1997 and thereafter in the year 1998 onwards there are engagements of the father of the petitioner on a daily rated basis. 4. It has further been stated before this Court that the father of the petitioner was not a regular employee and there is no provision for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of a person who is not in regular employment. The definition of Government Servant is given under Rule 2(a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which reads as under:- “2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires- (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; (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;” 5. Explanation.- “Regularly appointed” means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the case may be;” 5. The father of the petitioner does not come under the said definition. Therefore, there is no anomaly in the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kendriya Tarai Forest Division, Haldwani District-Nainital. The writ petition lacks merit, hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as is being sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 6. All the same, purely as a humanitarian measure and subject to the availability of a daily rated worker in the Division, in case, it appears to the concerned appointing authority that there is presently work available on a daily rated basis in the department, the department may consider giving an appointment to the petitioner on a daily rated basis which shall not entail any other rights to the petitioner on the said post. 7. No order as to costs.