JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. There is a delay of 21 days’ in preferring the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has no serious objection against the delay condonation application. 3. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, delay condonation application no. 01 of 2023 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 181 of 2023 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition in terms of judgment dated 11.06.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 640 of 2021 (Rakesh Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others) and thereby directing the respondents to comply with the directives given in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, so far as it relates to the petitioner. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner – respondent, herein, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. (ii) To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to treat the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a regular one and grant her such consequential benefits as would have accrued to her being a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules and (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post of her appointment since 12.04.2017.” 6. Brief facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that late husband of the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis with the appellant Department in the year 1982 but, later on, he was retrenched on 24.02.1989. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, on 20.08.2010, passed an award in favour of him directing his reinstatement in service along with back wages. Against the said award, the employer / appellants, herein, preferred a Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011. Consequent thereto, late husband of the petitioner – respondent, herein, sought to join his services by submitting a letter on 17.10.2011 but, unfortunately, before he could join his service, he died on 24.10.2011. Against the said award, the employer / appellants, herein, preferred a Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011. Consequent thereto, late husband of the petitioner – respondent, herein, sought to join his services by submitting a letter on 17.10.2011 but, unfortunately, before he could join his service, he died on 24.10.2011. Thereafter, petitioner – respondent, herein, approached the appellant Department for grant of compassionate appointment but the appellant Department rejected her claim, on the ground that her husband had not joined his duties, pursuant to the award dated 20.08.2010, therefore, his status was of a temporary employee. Feeling disgruntled, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPSS No. 1972 of 2013 before this Court. This Court on 12.04.2017 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to offer an appointment letter to the petitioner in lieu of death of the husband of the petitioner. Against the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant Department preferred a Special Appeal No. 1086 of 2017 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.03.2022. After dismissal of the Special Appeal, the appellant Department issued appointment order vide office memo. dated 07.04.2022 giving appointment to the petitioner – respondent, herein, on daily wage basis. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner – respondent, herein, preferred present writ petition, which was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 11.06.2021 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 640 of 2021. In WPSS No. 640 of 2021 identical controversy was raised. Against the judgment dated 11.06.2021, the State has filed Special Appeal unsuccessfully. The relevant paragraph 10 of the said judgment dated 11.06.2021, in terms whereof writ petition, was disposed of, reads as under : “10. Based on the aforesaid principle, since the petitioners appointment right from the date of their initial appointment ought to have been made on a regular basis on compassionate grounds and not on the daily basis, hence at this stage, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners had sought a writ of mandamus, for which they have already represented their respective claims, before the respondents by way of filing a representation respectively, the respondent no. 5 is directed to take a decision on the representations of the petitioners for regularizing their services and also for the grant of service benefits admissible to a regularly appointed employee, consequent thereto, but preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.” 7. The main ground of challenge in the appeal is that deceased employee – husband of the petitioner was only a daily rated employee and therefore, compassionate appointment could not have been given to the petitioner, as a regular employee for all purposes. This aspect has been dealt by the learned Single Judge by observing that the deceased employee – husband of the petitioner was engaged as daily wager in 1982 in the respondent Department and subsequently, he was retrenched on 24.02.1989 and then, he raised his grievance before the Labour Court and the Labour Court gave an award in his favour on 20.08.2010 whereby deceased employee was directed to be reinstated in service along with back wages. Against the order dated 20.08.2010, the employer preferred a Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed on 28.09.2011 and thereafter, the deceased husband of the petitioner sought to join the service by submitting a representation on 17.10.2011 but just a few days thereafter, he died on 24.10.2011 and award could not be executed. 8. Apart from this, we have examined the appointment letter of the petitioner. From perusal of the said appointment letter, it appears that this appointment was given to the petitioner on daily wage basis but at the same time, it appears that it is given on compassionate ground due to death of her husband. This appointment order always be, on the face of it, a compassionate appointment and it is a very settled law that compassionate appointment is always regular one, for which the petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer that appointment of the petitioner be treated as regular one. 9. It is also very well settled law that the Rules governing the compassionate appointment are beneficial legislation and such appointments are always substantive and regular appointments. In the present case, the petitioner – respondent, herein, was given compassionate appointment, on daily wage basis. The nature of benefit, as given, by way of compassionate appointment should be substantive and regular. 9. It is also very well settled law that the Rules governing the compassionate appointment are beneficial legislation and such appointments are always substantive and regular appointments. In the present case, the petitioner – respondent, herein, was given compassionate appointment, on daily wage basis. The nature of benefit, as given, by way of compassionate appointment should be substantive and regular. It is clear from the office memorandum dated 07.04.2022 that petitioner was engaged due to death of her husband and therefore, the nature of appointment, pursuant to this office memo., is to be treated on compassionate ground. However, treating the petitioner, as daily wager by virtue of this office memo., cannot be sustained, since compassionate appointment should always be regular and substantive one. Even otherwise, the controversy raised in WPSS No. 640 of 2021, is set at rest, as the Special Appeal arose therefrom is dismissed. 10. Learned Single Judge, after going through the entire record, discussed all the issues. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed.