AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-5-2004 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 5, whereby the application of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kamlesh has been rejected holding that the petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to the appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Rules, the deceased being a work-charge employee.
Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 (for short the deceased) was engaged in the respondents'' department in the year 1992 on the post of Gauge Reader and continued there till 18-2-2003. The deceased made a representation on 2-9-1983 to the respondent No. 5 claiming for the regularization of his service on the post of Fitter. The deceased made several representations for regularisation of his service in the year 1985 and subsequently in the year 1987 but the respondents did not pay any heed to his representations. On 13-8-1987, the deceased met with an accident during the course of his employment. According to the petitioners, due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the service of the deceased could not be regularized and the deceased died in harness on 18-3-2003 leaving behind five members in the family.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules is not being extended to them by the respondents and the son of the deceased i.e. petitioner No. 2 has not been given appointment thereunder.
On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit was filed by respondent No. 5. In paragraph No. 2 thereof, it is stated that late Viraj Kumar remained on muster roll during the period 1-11-1978 to 30-04-1997 and from 1-5-1997 to 17-3-2003 he worked on the post of Tendel in the work-charge establishment and died on 18-3-2003.
On behalf of the petitioners, rejoinder affidavit was filed.
In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been resolved by the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2008(S/S) Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. In that petition the husband of the petitioner was also a work charge employee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2008(S/S).
Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the respondents has fairly conceded the above facts.
I have perused the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court and I find that the issue in both the writ petitions is almost identical.
In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2008(S/S).
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 2008(S/S) Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. The impugned order dated 16-5-2004(Annexure-8) is quashed. The respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus to consider the application of the petitioners for appointment of petitioner No. 2-Vinit Tomar on compassionate grounds on merit by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.