Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 88 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Vishal Singh

2024-02-16

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The State has come up in this Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2020. As per the said judgment, the respondentwrit petitioner had approached this Court, taking a plea that his father was appointed as a Tube Well Operator (part time) on 18.08.1994 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 550/-, by the order of the Executive Engineer, Tube Well Block, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Earlier also, the father of the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1358 of 2019, claiming the benefit of regularisation, and that Writ Petition was disposed of on 14.06.2019, with a direction to the respondents therein to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner’s father. The case of the father of the petitioner was recommended for regularisation on 12.09.2019. The father of the petitioner passed away, after passing of the order for considering his case for regularisation, on 16.10.2019, and the final order of regularisation was passed on 31.10.2019. 3. The learned Single Judge has, rightly, allowed the Writ Petition by observing that the case for regularisation of petitioner’s father had been recommended on 12.09.2019, and the father of the petitioner died on 16.10.2019. Therefore, no fault can be attached to the petitioner, and the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that, on the date of regularisation, his father had expired, since the recommendation for regularisation had already been made on 12.09.2019. The Writ Petition has been rightly allowed, giving directions to the appellants herein to reconsider the case of the respondent herein under the Dying in Harness Rules. 4. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any Regularisation Policy, or any condition, which the petitioner’s father did not fulfil for the purpose of regularisation, and the appellants have also not been able to dispute that his case had been recommended for regularisation on 12.09.2019. The petitioner’s father had been working since 18.08.1994 and till 12.09.2019, he had rendered 25 years of service with the department, and hence his child (respondent herein) has a right to be considered for appointment under the Dying in Harness Policy. 5. The Special Appeal is meritless, and is, hereby, dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.