Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Harkauli, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant State and Km. Vishwa Mohini the learned counsel for the sole respondent who submits that so far as the claim of the compassionate appointment is concerned, the same was dependent on the regular status of employment of the father of the respondent.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State submits that since he had not been regularized, therefore in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2911) 1 AWC 1028, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15505 of 2005, decided on 22.09.2010, the claim of the respondent petitioner ought not have been decreed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
(3.) The sheet anchor of the argument therefore is based on the answer given by the Full Bench judgment which is extracted here in under:- "1. A daily wager and work charge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a 'Government servant' within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules.";