The Court directs that dependents appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds after the death of work-charged employees may seek regularisation through representation, referencing prior judicial orders; it does not depart from binding Full Bench precedent which had denied such status, but preserves the right to procedural consideration. The outcome has persuasive value for similarly situated employees in Uttarakhand’s engineering departments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPSS/239/2024 of ANAND MANI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CNR UKHC010022822024 |
| Date of Registration | 21-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Judge (Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari) |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for similar administrative scenarios; does not overrule Full Bench |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether daily wage appointments made on compassionate grounds after the death of a work-charged employee are entitled to be regularised as per Dying in Harness Rules or considered regular appointments. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court acknowledged the Full Bench precedent, which holds that dependents of daily wage employees are not covered under ‘Government Servant’ as defined by U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, making them ineligible for compassionate appointment under the Rules regardless of length of service. However, noting prior Division Bench decisions and prior instances of regularisation, the Court permitted petitioners to make representation for regularisation if so advised, to be considered on merits by the competent authority without granting the substantive relief sought. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory definition under Rule 2(a)(iii) of Dying in Harness Rules; Government Order dated 04.12.2002; pattern of prior administrative action (regularisation of similarly situated persons); binding strength of judicial precedents. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were dependents appointed as daily wagers in engineering departments after the death of breadwinners employed as work-charged staff. They claim long service and seek regularisation and consequential benefits. The State contests their eligibility based on the definition of ‘Government Servant’ in Dying in Harness Rules. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7813 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Administrative authorities and similarly situated petitioners within Uttarakhand, for the procedural aspect of considering representations for regularisation. |
| Persuasive For | Other courts and administrative tribunals handling service matters involving compassionate appointees on daily wages. |
| Overrules | None. Full Bench judgment is affirmed as binding. |
| Distinguishes | Differentiates between Full Bench and Division Bench precedents; gives procedural guidance without changing substantive law. |
| Follows | Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Full Bench) as authoritative on substantive entitlement; references Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 for practical treatment. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court permits daily wager compassionate appointees to make representations for regularisation, to be decided by the competent authority on their merits.
- No direct regularisation granted; Full Bench precedent (excluding such employees from Dying in Harness Rules) remains binding.
- Lawyers can reference this precedent to seek procedural consideration rather than direct judicial regularisation for similarly situated clients.
- Reliance on previous instances of regularisation (Division Bench decisions and administrative practices) may be placed before the competent authority.
- The Court preserves the right of representation and due process, even when underlying substantive law appears adverse.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the binding Full Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 holds that dependents of daily wage employees do not qualify as ‘Government Servants’ under Dying in Harness Rules, and thus are not entitled to compassionate appointment or regularisation under those Rules.
- Petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021) and administrative orders regularising similarly situated persons.
- The Court acknowledged the preclusive legal position regarding the ineligibility of daily wage dependents for compassionate regularisation, but considered prior instances where administrative discretion was exercised in favour of regularisation.
- In the interest of justice, the Court did not grant substantive regularisation but permitted petitioners to apply to the competent authority, who would consider any representations in accordance with law and precedent, including cited judgments.
- Thus, the Court balanced the strict application of precedent with the preservation of procedural fairness and an avenue for individualized administrative consideration.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds due to the death of parents who were employed as work-charged staff.
- Have rendered long, continuous, and satisfactory service for more than ten years.
- Cited Division Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021), arguing that such appointments should be treated as regular from inception.
- Contended that several similarly situated persons have been regularised post-judicial directions and administrative decisions.
Respondent
- Relied on Full Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011) holding dependents of daily wagers are not ‘Government Servants’ under Dying in Harness Rules.
- Asserted petitioners are not entitled to regularisation regardless of years of service.
- Opposed any direction for regularisation contrary to binding precedent.
Factual Background
Petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds as daily wagers following the death of breadwinners employed as work-charged employees in the engineering departments of Uttarakhand. Their parents had not attained regular status before their death, and petitioners have since worked for several years. Pursuant to a 2002 Government Order, such appointments as daily wagers were policy, but contentions arose over subsequent regularisation. Petitioners sought judicial relief for regular status and consequential benefits, pointing to both adverse and favourable judicial precedents.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Rule 2(a)(iii) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness Rules), 1974.
- Full Bench precedent held that daily wage employees and their dependents do not fit the definition of ‘Government Servant’ under these Rules, precluding regularisation on compassionate grounds.
- Para 10 of Government Order dated 04.12.2002 was considered, permitting the appointment of dependents as daily wagers where work-charged employees eligible for regularisation died in service.
- The Court did not expand or read down the statutory definitions; instead, it directed that representations for regularisation be considered administratively on their own merits.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court formulated a process: permitting affected employees to submit representations for regularisation within two weeks, and directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of such applications within five months, referencing prior judicial orders if relied upon.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies binding Full Bench precedent, while allowing procedural avenues consistent with administrative fairness.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7813
- Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (Full Bench, Uttarakhand High Court)
- Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 (Division Bench, Uttarakhand High Court)