Can Dependents Appointed as Daily Wagers on Compassionate Grounds Claim Regularisation Based on Extended Service? Supreme Precedent Affirmed; Representations Permitted, But No Direct Mandamus for Regularisation

LawSikho
September 10, 2025
Category: High Court of Uttarakhand

The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirms the bar on treating dependents of daily wage or work-charged employees, appointed on compassionate grounds, as “regular” government servants under Dying in Harness Rules, following Full Bench precedent. Petitioners are permitted to seek regularisation by making representations, but the Court does not grant direct regularisation. The decision clarifies the limited scope for such claims and is binding within Uttarakhand.

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	WPSS/418/2025 of Prabhat Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand
CNR	UKHC010040402025
Date of Registration	25-03-2025
Decision Date	02-09-2025
Disposal Nature	DISPOSED
Judgment Author	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Court	High Court of Uttarakhand
Precedent Value	Binding precedent within jurisdiction (Uttarakhand High Court); follows Full Bench authority
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011
Type of Law	Service Law / Compassionate Appointment / Regularisation under Dying in Harness Rules
Questions of Law	Whether dependents appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds are entitled to regularisation as ‘regular’ appointees under Dying in Harness Rules after long service.
Ratio Decidendi	The Full Bench of Uttarakhand High Court has held that dependents of daily wage employees are not covered under the definition of ‘Government Servant’ as per Rule 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and thus are not entitled to regular appointment or benefits under those Rules, regardless of years of service. The Court reiterated that appointments as daily wagers on compassionate grounds, as per government policy, do not confer right to regularisation. However, the Court allowed petitioners to make individual representations for regularisation, which the competent authorities must consider in accordance with law. No direct mandamus was issued. Petitioners may rely on DB decisions where similarly placed persons were regularised but the legal bar remains as per Full Bench precedent.
Judgments Relied Upon	Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 (Division Bench, for regularisation in similar cases by government) Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Full Bench, for bar on regularisation under Rules)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Government Order dated 04.12.2002 Rule 2(a)(iii) of UP Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Full Bench)
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Petitioners, dependents of deceased work-charged employees, were appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds in various engineering departments. Each petitioner has rendered over 10 years’ service and seeks regularisation and salary benefits as regular appointees under the Dying in Harness Rules. State policy allowed compassionate appointment only as daily wagers.
Citations	2025:UHC:7813

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts within Uttarakhand
Persuasive For	Other High Courts, when interpreting similar service and compassionate appointment rules
Follows	Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Full Bench, Uttarakhand High Court) Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 (Division Bench, referenced for examples)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that dependents appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds after death of a work-charged employee are not “government servants” under Dying in Harness Rules and cannot claim regularisation as of right.
Petitioners are expressly left at liberty to make individual representations for regularisation, which competent authorities must consider; however, Courts will not issue a blanket direction for regularisation.
Lawyers may cite this decision to clarify limitations of compassionate appointment regularisation claims, especially for daily wage/work-charged staff.
Permits reference to Division Bench instances (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021) for case-specific consideration but holds Full Bench view as binding law.
Clarifies reliance on government policy (e.g., Government Order dated 04.12.2002) does not, in itself, override the statutory exclusion under Dying in Harness Rules.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The Court noted the petitioners’ appointments as daily wagers on compassionate grounds following the death of breadwinners who were work-charged employees.
The main legal contention revolved around whether such appointees could claim regularisation as “regular” government servants under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021) where similarly situated individuals were regularised; the State relied upon the binding Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011, which excluded dependents of daily wage employees from the definition of “Government Servant”.
After examining the government policy (GO dated 04.12.2002) and statutory framework, the Court held that appointment as a daily wager, even on compassionate grounds, does not confer the rights of a regular government servant and does not entitle the appointee to automatic regularisation.
The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus for regularisation but allowed petitioners to make representations to authorities, to be decided on a case-by-case basis per applicable law and allowing reliance on relevant judicial precedent.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Petitioners’ parent (father/mother) were work-charged employees, eligible for regularisation, but died before confirmation.
As dependents, they were appointed on compassionate grounds as daily wagers per state policy.
Each petitioner rendered over 10 years of continuous service.
Cited a Division Bench decision (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021) to assert they should be treated as regular appointees and provided consequential benefits under Dying in Harness Rules.

Respondent (State of Uttarakhand)

Relied on Full Bench decision (Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011) holding that dependents of daily wage employees do not come within the definition of “government servant” for purposes of employment under Dying in Harness Rules, regardless of service duration.
Asserted appointments were as daily wagers only, not as regular staff, in terms of policy and rules.

Factual Background

The petitioners are dependents of deceased work-charged employees from various engineering departments of the Uttarakhand State Government. Following the breadwinner’s death, and as per a 2002 government order, each petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on compassionate grounds. All petitioners have now served for more than ten years. They sought directions from the Court to be treated as regular appointees and receive all consequential benefits, including back wages.

Statutory Analysis

The Court interpreted Rule 2(a)(iii) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness Rules), 1974, which defines “Government Servant.”
The Full Bench had previously held that daily wage employees do not fall within this definition, and thus, their dependents do not have rights under these rules.
The policy in the Government Order dated 04.12.2002 permitted only daily wage appointments on compassionate grounds for dependents of deceased work-charged staff.
The Court applied a narrow/statutory reading, upholding the strict exclusion for daily wagers as per the Rules.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Full Bench decision is reaffirmed and applied as binding precedent.

Citations

2025:UHC:7813