- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This special appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06-12-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2726 (S/s) 2001, Mrs. Mangali Devi Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and di rected the authority concerned to con sider the appointment of the petitioner's son under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 1974 Rules ). The learned Single Judge has also directed to pay the pension, gratu ity and salary of the deceased.
(2.) A writ petition bearing No. 27267 2001 (S/s) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner- Mrs. Mangali Devi for the following reliefs : (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ap point the son of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules and to pay the petitioner back salary, pension and gratuity with interest within the time allowed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) Issue any other suitable writ or der or a direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (c) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner late Sri Govind Singh Rana was work ing under the Executive Engineer, Con struction Division, Public Works Depart ment, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal on the post of Beldar on daily wage basis since 1977 and he worked as daily wage employee upto the year 1979. Thereafter the husband of the petitioner was taken as work charge employee on the post of Beldar since 1980 and he worked upto 05-06-1993. Thus, the hus band of the petitioner worked for about a period of 16 years. The husband of the petitioner died on 05-06-1993 leaving behind the heirs and legal representa tives, namely Mrs. Mangala Devi (Widow) and four sons Gabar Singh, Jaspal Singh, Shishpal Singh and Digpal Singh. It was further alleged in the peti tion that the Executive Engineer, PWD had prepared a seniority list of work charge employees in the year 1992 in which the name of the deceased-Govind Singh Rana finds place at serial no. 10. One- Trilok Singh was engaged in Musterroll in the construction division, PWD Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal in the year 1984 and he was then engaged on work charge basis in the year 1989. After the death of Trilok Singh, his son was given compassionate appointment. The petitioner had further alleged that one- Harsh Mani was also appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1973 and he was taken on work charge in the year 1989. He died in the year 1993 and his son was given the compassionate appointment. The peti tioner had filed the representation before the authority concerned that her elder son is also covered under the G. O. dated 16-03-1996 which provides that the work charge employee who died in service and had completed 10 years of service his dependant may be given compassionate appointment. When no heed was paid to the request of the petitioner, she filed a petition before the Consumer Forum on which the Consumer Forum vide or der dated 15-07- 1995 allowed the peti tion. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the department went up in appeal before the State Consumer Forum, U. P, Lucknow. The State Consumer Forum vide order dated 21-07- 2000 allowed the appeal holding that the remedy of the petitioner is to file claim petition before the U. P Public Service Tribunal. Feeling ag grieved by this, the petitioner filed the I writ petition before this Court. The counter affidavit was filed by the respondents against the writ pe tition admitting therein that the husband of the petitioner was serving in the work charge establishment. It was further al leged that the contents of petition with regard to Trilok Singh are wrong be cause Sri Trilok Singh was a regular em ployee and as such his son was given compassionate appointment. It was fur ther alleged that the petitioner has wrongly stated in the petition that after the death of Harsh Mani, his son was given employment under the die-in-har-ness. Harsh Mani is alive and is still working in the department.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge had allowed the petition vide order dated 06-12- 2003 and directed to the authority concerned to pay the pension, gratuity and salary of the deceased and to consider the ap pointment of the petitioner's son under the 1974 Rules. Feeling aggrieved by the said or der, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellants- State of Uttaranchal and others.;