JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has moved this Court by filing this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.03.2017, annexure-8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.2-SDM Dhari, District Nainital and further a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as applicable in Uttarakhand) (for short “The Rules, 1974”) on a suitable post as per his educational qualification. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s father was earlier engaged with the respondent no. 1 as Seasonal Collection Amin since 1994. The father of the petitioner moved the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 for regularization of his service along with other similarly situated persons. The said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 30.07.1998. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in that writ petition for regularization and allowed them to continue as Collection Amin with the respondent-department. Aggrieved by the said order passed by learned Single Judge, the Special Appeal was filed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh being Special Appeal No.481 of 1999 which was transferred to this Court after creation of the State of Uttarakhand and the High Court Uttarakhand at Nainital. The Special Appeal was re-numbered as Special Appeal No.119 of 2008. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 and the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 30.07.1998 was affirmed. 4. Pursuant to the dismissal of the Special Appeal moved by the State Government against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the petitioners in that writ petition were regularized by the State Government on the post of Collection Amin vide order dated 10.09.2010. Name of the father of the petitioner was also there in the order dated 10.09.2010 at S.No.5. But before he could reap the fruits of litigation, petitioner father expired on 10.11.2009 bereaving his family. After regularization of the petitioners of Civil Misc. Name of the father of the petitioner was also there in the order dated 10.09.2010 at S.No.5. But before he could reap the fruits of litigation, petitioner father expired on 10.11.2009 bereaving his family. After regularization of the petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 (Collection Amins), petitioner’s mother moved an application on 12.05.2011 requesting the respondents to give compassionate appointment to her son i.e. the petitioner and subsequently, when the said application was not given any heed, petitioner himself also moved an application on 06.08.2016. The said application remained pending consideration with the respondent-department, which compelled the petitioner to file the writ petition being WPSS No.221 of 2017 (Ghanshyam Singh Bisht vs. District Magistrate, Nainital & others). The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2017 directing the respondent no.1 i.e. District Magistrate to take a decision on the application for compassionate appointment moved by the petitioner dated 06.08.2016 within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of that order. 5. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 14.03.2017 passed by S.D.M. Dhari, District Nainital. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only ground which is revealed from the impugned rejection order is that since the father of the petitioner could not have been regularized, pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was subsequently, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner was not given the compassionate appointment for the reason that petitioner’s father was not in regular service, therefore, he cannot be extended the benefit of the Rules, 1974. He further contended that since all the similarly situated petitioners of earlier writ petition have been regularized pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal, father of petitioner would have also been regularized but for his unfortunate demise, he could not have been so regularized. 7. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, after dismissal of the Special Appeal of the State, all the petitioners of the Civil Misc. 7. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, after dismissal of the Special Appeal of the State, all the petitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 were regularized vide order dated 10.09.2010 and in that regularization order, the name of the petitioner’s father was at S.No.5. He also submits that in any case, if the father of the petitioner would not have been expired in between, the petitioner would have been given compassionate appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is mere chance of circumstances that the father of the petitioner died earlier, but after the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad where the orders for regularization have been passed. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State supporting the rejection of the application of the petitioner for compassionate ground mainly on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not in regular service when he expired and accordingly, the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Rules, 1974. 10. Rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit have also been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his case for compassionate appointment mainly reiterating the contents of the writ petition. However, it is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that the claim of the petitioner would relate back to the date of decision of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that the compassionate appointments are not matter of right and is not a source of recruitment, rather it is exception to the general rule of appointment. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record, there is one point clear in the matter that when the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 of the petitioners was allowed, the rights have been matured in favour of the petitioner’s father, subject to disposal of the Special Appeal. The Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2009 and accordingly, the rights have been matured in favour of the father of the petitioner. But for his father’s unfortunate demise, petitioner’s father was also entitled for the regularization as his father’s co-petitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 were regularized. The Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2009 and accordingly, the rights have been matured in favour of the father of the petitioner. But for his father’s unfortunate demise, petitioner’s father was also entitled for the regularization as his father’s co-petitioners of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36942 of 1997 were regularized. The Rules, 1974 are beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, the Rules should be construed liberally in favour of the children and family members of the deceased government servant. Had the father of the petitioner not died in between, the natural fall out would be that he would also be regularized as a regular Collection Amin with the respondent-department. 12. Apart from this, from perusal of the Rules, 1974 as applicable upto date in the State of Uttarakhand, it is reflected that in Rule 2(a) “Government Servant” is defined. Rule 2(a) is reproduced below:- “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; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” 13. From Sub-rule 2(a)(iii) of the Rules, 1974, it is clear that “Government Servant” means a Government Servant employed in connection with the affairs of State of Uttar Pradesh (read State of Uttarakhand), though, not regularly appointed, had put in three years continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment. 14. If looked into the issue involved in the present writ petition as per the definition of “Government Servant”, the father of the petitioner is squarely covered in the definition of “Government Servant” given under Rule 2(a)(iii) of the Rules, 1974, as he has worked as a daily wager with the respondent-department more than three years continuously against regular vacancy. 15. In this view of the matter too, there can be no impediment to the respondent/State to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner treating his deceased father a government servant. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.03.2017, passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.03.2017, passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.1 commanding to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on a suitable post as per his educational qualification. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.