Uttarakhand High Court affirms that compassionate appointments as daily wagers (where the deceased employee was not a regular government servant) do not automatically entitle dependents to regularisation, but allows limited representation if the initial compassionate appointment conformed to a government order. Precedent of the Full Bench followed; claimants may make representations for regularisation based on policy but with no automatic rights. This decision is binding within Uttarakhand and serves as persuasive authority elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/193/2025 of Atul Maithani Vs State of Uttarakhand |
| CNR | UKHC010020912025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-02-2025 |
| 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 (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Uttarakhand subordinate courts; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Compassionate Appointment / Regularisation |
| Questions of Law | Whether compassionate appointment as daily wager (where deceased was in work charged establishment) permits later regularisation as of right after long continuous service |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that dependents appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds (pursuant to a government policy, not under the Dying in Harness Rules for regular servants) are not automatically entitled to regularisation after long service. The appointment as daily wager on compassionate grounds is not irregular if done in terms of policy. However, the Court provided that such employees may make representation for regularisation to the competent authority; such claims must be decided as per law, allowing reliance on an earlier Division Bench judgment but subject to the binding Full Bench decision. There is no automatic or absolute right to regularisation under these circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds after the death of their parents, who were work charged employees allegedly eligible for regularisation. Petitioners claim entitlement to regularisation after long continuous service. State opposes, contending no right to compassionate appointment exists for dependents of daily wagers, per Full Bench ruling. |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7813 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None; affirms Full Bench Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 |
| Distinguishes | N/A (no explicit distinctions drawn against other judgments in operative part) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that dependents of daily wagers or work charged employees are not “Government Servants” under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (per binding Full Bench precedent).
- Appointment as daily wager on compassionate grounds, if as per policy, is not illegal or irregular.
- No automatic or absolute right to regularisation for such appointees, even after long continuous service.
- Petitioners permitted to make representation for regularisation, and may rely on prior Division Bench decisions; but authorities must decide per law and binding Full Bench authority.
- Practical route for clients in similar circumstances: use representation route—no direct writ for regularisation will be entertained without first pressing claim before competent authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court consolidates several writ petitions with common questions of law and fact.
- Reviews Government Order dated 04.12.2002 permitting compassionate appointment as daily wager where deceased was a work charged employee eligible for regularisation.
- Applies Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011: dependents of daily wage/work charged employees are not “Government Servants”; no right to appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.
- Notes the Division Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 which allowed regularisation in some cases; Court allows petitioners to cite this in representation but does not countermand the Full Bench’s ratio.
- Grants liberty to petitioners to make representation to the competent authority for regularisation, with such representation to be decided strictly as per law, considering the relevant precedents.
- No blanket mandamus for regularisation; adherence to authoritative legal positions is maintained.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Deceased parents were employed in the work charged establishment and were eligible for regularisation; their dependents (the petitioners) were appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds.
- Petitioners have rendered more than ten years of service as daily wagers.
- Appointment was as per government policy, so cannot be called irregular.
- Relied on Division Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021) that compassionate appointees should be treated as regular.
State (Respondent)
- Relied on Full Bench judgment (Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011): dependents of daily wagers are not covered by the Dying in Harness Rules’ definition of “Government Servant”.
- No right exists for such dependents to seek compassionate employment or regularisation, regardless of number of years served.
Factual Background
Petitioners’ parents were work charged employees in various engineering departments of the State of Uttarakhand who died while in service. After their deaths, the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on compassionate grounds, in line with a government order. The petitioners claim they have served for more than ten years and seek regularisation, asserting they are entitled to parity with regular government servants. The State contests this, citing legal restrictions on such appointments and regularisation.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interprets Rule 2(a)(iii) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness Rules), 1974, focusing on the definition of “Government Servant”.
- Discusses the Government Order dated 04.12.2002, which allows appointment of dependents as daily wagers (not regular staff) if the deceased was a work charged employee eligible for regularisation.
- No “reading down” or Constitutional provision interpretation is presented in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted. Single judge bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
- All writ petitions with similar facts and law were consolidated and disposed by a common order.
- Direct regularisation relief refused; instead, representation process permitted with timelines, requiring authority to pass orders within five months.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Full Bench precedent strictly followed for definition of “Government Servant” and compassionate appointment eligibility.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7813
- Full Bench Special Appeal No. 7 of 2011 (para 27 excerpted)
- Division Bench Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021