Disposed

Upendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Sept 2025WPSS/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by dependants appointed as daily wagers on compassionate ground following death of work charged employee breadwinners, seeking regularisation after long service. Court permitted them to make representations to the competent authority, which must decide per law within five months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to seek regularisation by representation to competent authority within two weeks; authority to pass orders per law within five months.

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS/1653/2023
With
WPSS Nos. 540/2025, 178/2024, 179/2024, 239/2024,
248/2024,
38/2025,
193/2025,
194/2025,
204/2025,
418/2025, 419/2025, 436/2025, 437/2025, 438/2025 and
542/2025
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS
Nos. 540/2025 and 438/2025.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General
with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisth, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.

1.
Petitioners in these writ petitions were appointed on
compassionate ground as daily wager on account of death
of the breadwinners in their family, who were serving in
work charged establishment in different engineering
departments of the State.

2.
According to petitioners, they have served for
sufficiently long period of time; therefore, they are entitled
to be given regular appointment, but their claim is not being
considered.
3.
Since common questions of law and fact are involved
in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are
being decided by a common judgment. However, for the
sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1653 of
2023 alone are being discussed and considered. Reliefs
sought in WPSS No. 1653 of 2023 are as follows:
“1.
To summon the complete record pertaining to the case.
2.
To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent authorities to treat the appointment
of the petitioner on compassionate ground as a regular one and grant
him such consequential benefits as would have accrued to him being

a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules. 3. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post of his appointment since 01.06.2015.”
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the
father/mother of the petitioners were employed in work
charge establishment under the State Government and they
had become due for regularisation in view of long services rendered as work charged employee; however, due to their untimely death, they could not acquire status of a regular
employee and petitioners were given compassionate
appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have
served for the last more than ten years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention
of this Court to a Government Order dated 04.12.2002,
issued by Additional Secretary, Irrigation Department to
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. Para 10 of the said
Government Order provides that in case of death of work
charged employees who were eligible for regularisation,
their dependent family member may be appointed as daily wager.
6. It is the case of petitioners that since petitioners were
appointed as daily wager in terms of the policy decision
taken by State Government, therefore, their appointment
cannot be said to be irregular. It is further their case that
after rendering long, continuous and satisfactory service as
daily wager, petitioners have earned the right for
regularisation.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court

a regular appointee under Dying in Harness Rules.
3.
To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant salary on the post
of his appointment since 01.06.2015.”

4.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the

father/mother of the petitioners were employed in work

charge establishment under the State Government and they

had become due for regularisation in view of long services
rendered as work charged employee; however, due to their
untimely death, they could not acquire status of a regular

employee and petitioners were given compassionate

appointment, but on daily wage basis and all of them have

served for the last more than ten years.

5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention

of this Court to a Government Order dated 04.12.2002,

issued by Additional Secretary, Irrigation Department to

Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. Para 10 of the said

Government Order provides that in case of death of work

charged employees who were eligible for regularisation,

their dependent family member may be appointed as daily
wager.

6.
It is the case of petitioners that since petitioners were

appointed as daily wager in terms of the policy decision

taken by State Government, therefore, their appointment

cannot be said to be irregular. It is further their case that

after rendering long, continuous and satisfactory service as

daily wager, petitioners have earned the right for

regularisation.

7.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance
upon a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court

in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021, for contending that
appointment given on compassionate ground has to be
treated as regular.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel relies upon a
judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011, by Full
Bench of this Court for contending that dependents of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of
‘Government Servant’ as defined in Rule 2(a)(iii) of U.P.
Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying
in Harness Rules), 1974. Para 27 of said judgment is
extracted below: “27. This Court therefore holds that the dependants of a daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of a “Government Servant” as defined under Section 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules. Hence, they are not liable to be given employment on compassionate ground under the Rules, irrespective of the numbers of the years such an employee had put in service, prior to his death.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.
408 of 2021, certain similarly situate persons, who were
appointed as daily wager on compassionate ground on
account of death of the breadwinner, have been regularised.
10. Having regard to the pleadings made and reliefs
sought in the writ petitions, this Court thinks that ends of
justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make
representation, seeking regularisation of their service. It
shall be open to them to place reliance on the judgment
rendered in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021.
11. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by
permitting petitioners to make representation for their

in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021, for contending that

appointment given on compassionate ground has to be

treated as regular.

8.
Per contra, learned State Counsel relies upon a

judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011, by Full

Bench of this Court for contending that dependents of a
daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of

‘Government Servant’ as defined in Rule 2(a)(iii) of U.P.

Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying

in Harness Rules), 1974. Para 27 of said judgment is

extracted below:
“27. This Court therefore holds that the dependants of a
daily wage employee are not covered under the definition of a
“Government Servant” as defined under Section 2(a)(iii) of the
Dying in Harness Rules. Hence, they are not liable to be given
employment on compassionate ground under the Rules,
irrespective of the numbers of the years such an employee had
put in service, prior to his death.”

9.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

pursuant to the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.

408 of 2021, certain similarly situate persons, who were

appointed as daily wager on compassionate ground on

account of death of the breadwinner, have been regularised.

10.
Having regard to the pleadings made and reliefs

sought in the writ petitions, this Court thinks that ends of

justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make

representation, seeking regularisation of their service. It

shall be open to them to place reliance on the judgment

rendered in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021.

11.
Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of by

permitting petitioners to make representation for their

Upendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shamsheeda Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anand Mani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Yasin Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand