- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been settled by this Court, accordingly, with the consent of parties. I proceed to decide the writ petition of the admission stage.
(2.) THE petitioner's father was a workcharge employee who expired on 11-9-2001. After the death of his father, petitioner has applied for her appointment under dying-in-harness rules, but, petitioner's application for appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been rejected on the ground that employees working on workcharge basis are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the husband of the petitioner has worked for about 25 years, he should deemed to be working against regular vacancy and he will be entitled for pension which is admissible to a regular employee. Assuming the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that petitioner's father has worked on work charge basis, in view of the law laid down by this Court in a case reported in (2002) UPLBEC 337, Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P. and others, the petitioner shall be entitled for appointment under dying-in-harness rules. Relevant portion of Santosh Kumar Mishra's case (supra) is reproduced as under: " (7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad (supra), for stressing his submission that the petitioner's father would be deemed to have been a regular Government servant in view of the fact that his appointment has been converted into workcharge employee in pursuance of the scheme approved by the apex Court. He further submitted that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Pushp Lata Dixit v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, reported in 1991 (18) ALR 591, the petitioner is entitled for getting appointment. In this case, the husband of Smt. Pushp Lata was working as a Paid Apprentice. The plea that he was not a regular employee although he had been working in the department for the last 17 years was not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness rules was rejected by the Court and the directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner (Smt. Pushp Lata) according to her qualification relying upon this case, the writ petition filed by Smt. Maya Dei v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1998 (79) FLR 608, was allowed in which the High Court found that the petitioner's husband in that case has satisfactorily worked for about 10 years until his death and though he may be a daily wager, the petitioner can be accommodated on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2187 (All) : (2000) 1 UPLBEC (Alld.) (Sum.) 15, the benefit was given to the temporary appointee as he was working against a substantive vacancy. (13) From the facts of the case of Thingujam Borejen Meetel (supra) it is clear that the scheme framed by the Government confine the benefits to the regular Government employees as per provisions of para 3 and the workcharge employees are covered by another set of Rules of 1978. It is also obvious that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not have an occasion to consider the question of daily wager or a workcharge employee who has been allowed to continue for a considerable length of service and has legitimate expectation of being regularised against a vacancy it the regular vacancy is not available of the time when he was engaged on daily wages or was converted into a workcharge employee in the workcharge establishment. (15) In the instant case, also, it reflects that the Supreme Court being alive of the hanging fate of the daily wagers and workcharge employees who have put in considerable length of service approved a scheme for giving regular appointment to such workcharge employees, in the case of Raj Narain Prasad (supra) the workcharge employees are said to have been engaged for particular requirements but their continuous length of serve and engagement entitles them to claim regularisation against existing or future vacancy. The Supreme Court specifically directed them that there should be regular review of cadre strength so that workcharge employees may be accommodate against the available existing vacancies and to create the vacancies against which they can be accommodated and likewise muster roll employees can stand next to workcharge employees. If, therefore, cannot be but rightly said that dependent of every workcharge employee irrespective of his length of service and irrespective of the fact whether he was, entitled for regularisation or not can be deprived of the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. (16) It may also be taken note of that if daily wager or a workcharge employee is engaged against a particular duty or post, and that work is of perennial nature, the presumption would be that such an employee would be entitled for being treated to have been continuing against a regular vacancy. " Under the above facts and circumstances and from the material of the face of record. It is obvious that the petitioner's father has worked for about 25 years as temporary basis, the authorities have got no right to adopt different standard for the same purpose i. e. while making appointment under dying-in- harness rules. Accordingly, reasoning given in the impugned order rejecting petitioner's claim is not sustainable under law. Petitioner is entitled to be considered and get appointment in accordance to law on compassionate grounds under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 25th April, 2003 and 16th September, 2002 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition passed by Opposite Party No. 5 & 6 with all consequential benefits. The opposite parties are commanded to consider petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds and issue appointment order expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .;