PRAKASH CHANDRA JOSHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
rd
3 Novermber, 2026
Special Appeal No. 342 of 2026
Prakash Chandra Joshi --Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel
Counsel for the State Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel
:
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. This Intra-Court appeal by writ petitioners is
directed against the judgment and order dated
20.07.2026, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition (SS) No. 2059 of 2022. Operative portion of the
impugned judgment is reproduced below:
“8. Admittedly, the petitioner's father was working as a
daily-wage employee at the time of his death on
08.01.2022. Mere inclusion of his name in the list dated
05.01.2022 for consideration of regularisation did not
amount to actual regularisation or confer upon him the
status of a regular Government servant, particularly when
the process was subject to scrutiny and approval by the
competent authority. Since no order regularising his
services was issued during his lifetime, he continued to
remain a daily-wage employee and, therefore, did not fall
within the definition of a "Government Servant" under Rule
2(a) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The petitioner's
claim was duly reconsidered pursuant to the earlier
directions issued by this Court and rejected by a reasoned
order dated 30.09.2022. In view of the settled legal
position that the dependant of a daily-wage employee
cannot claim compassionate appointment under the 1974
Rules, this Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the
impugned order warranting interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.”
2. In the writ petition, appellant challenged order
dated 30.09.2022 passed by Chief Conservator of Forest
1
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
(HRD), Dehradun, whereby his claim for compassionate
appointment was rejected on the ground that his father
was yet to attain the status of a regular government
servant.
3. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ
petition, reveals that appellant earlier filed Writ Petition
(SS) No. 1009 of 2022 wherein a direction was issued to
the competent authority to consider appellant’s
application for compassionate appointment, in the light
of the fact that decision to regularise services of his
father was already taken on 05.01.2022, even though
formal order of regularisation could not be passed, till
08.01.2022, when his father passed away.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
holding that appellant’s father had not acquired status of
a regular Government servant, till his death, therefore
appellant is not entitled to benefit of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974, as applicable in State of Uttarakhand.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant’s father was serving as daily wager in forest
department continuously since 01.04.1993 without any
break whatsoever and competent authority in the
department initiated exercise for regularisation of daily
wagers, in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others
Vs. Putti Lal, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 337 and also the
Regularisation Rules framed by State of Uttarakhand in
2013; appellant’s father was entitled for regularisation as
2
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
per the judgment and also under the 2013 Rules and his
name figured in the list of persons who were found
entitled for regularisation; said list was published on
05.01.2022; but, formal order was not immediately
issued, therefore death of appellant’s father 3 days after
publication of the list cannot have the effect of denuding
his dependents of the benefit which is available to
dependents of a regular Government servant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that since appellant’s father died before order of
regularisation could be issued in his favour and his status
was that of a daily wager, therefore learned Single Judge
rightly dismissed the writ petition, as dependents of daily
wager are not entitled for compassionate appointment
under Dying in Harness Rules.
7. We do not find substance in the submission made
by learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Appellant’s father was serving continuously since
1993 as a daily wager in forest department and he had
put in more than 29 years of continuous satisfactory
service at the time of death. It is not in dispute that
other daily wage employees, including juniors to
appellant’s father were regularised but appellant’s father
was not regularised because of his death.
9. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal,
reported as 1998 (79) FLR 592, a Division Bench of
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated
10.12.1997 decided a batch of writ petitions and appeals
3
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
by directing the State Government to appoint a
committee consisting of Secretaries of Finance, Forest
and Law Department for considering the question of
framing scheme for regularisation/absorption of daily
wage employees serving in Forest Department.
10. The judgment rendered by Division Bench of
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court was challenged before
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed
of the appeals and special leave petition vide judgment
dated 21.02.2002, which is reported as 2006 (9) SCC
337. Relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced
below:
“3. On behalf of the employees an IA had been filed
claiming that they should at least be allowed their regular
wages during the pendency of the appeals, but by order
dated 27-9-1999 that prayer was rejected and it was held
that the persons working will be paid only the amount
payable to a daily-wager. When these matters had been
posted for hearing before the Court on 1-5-2001, after
hearing the parties for a considerable length of time, the
Court felt that the impugned direction of the High Court for
providing a scheme for regularisation of all the daily-wage
workers/muster-roll employees under the Forest Department
who have rendered 10 years of service or more, should be
regularised by making appropriate scheme. The Court
directed that the scheme should be framed within three
months from the date of the order. As the State of U.P. was
bifurcated into two States and the State of Uttaranchal had
come into existence, by a subsequent order the State of
Uttaranchal was also impleaded as a party and it had been
granted time to file its response. Pursuant to the aforesaid
direction of the Court dated 1-5-2001 the State of U.P. has
framed a set of rules in exercise of power conferred under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called “the
Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wagers (Appointment
on Group ‘D’ Posts) Rules, 2001”. It appears that a similar
rule has been framed for regularisation of Group ‘C’ daily-
wage employees. Both these statutory rules would govern
the case of all daily-wagers appointed in any department
including the Forest Department, which Department was
before us pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court. Since a statutory rule has been
framed indicating the manner in which the daily-wagers can
4
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
be regularised, question of framing any further scheme by
the State of Uttar Pradesh does not arise.
6. So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a
scheme for regularisation of daily workers has been
produced before us which prima facie does not appear to be
objectionable excepting the provision regarding qualification
for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential
for being regularised would be the qualification as was
relevant on the date a particular employee was taken in as a
daily-wager and not the qualification which is being fixed
under the scheme. The fact that the employees have been
allowed to continue for so many years indicates the
existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still it
would not be open for the Court to indicate as to how many
posts would be created for the absorption of these daily-
wage workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate
authority will consider the case of these daily-wagers
sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these
years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far
as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the case of
the State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily-wager in the State of
Uttaranchal would be also entitled to the minimum of the
pay scale as is available to his counterpart in the
Government until his services are regularised and he is given
regular scale of pay.
7. The civil appeals and the special leave petitions stand
disposed of accordingly.”
11. From the judgment rendered in the case of State of
U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, reported as 2006 (9) SCC
337, it is revealed that State of Uttranchal had submitted
scheme for regularisation of daily wage workers before
Hon’ble Supreme Court during the course of hearing in
February, 2002 which was approvd by the Apex Court,
however, appellant’s father was not considered for
regularisation for more than two decades thereafter.
12. State of Uttarakhand framed Rules for
regularisation of daily wage/ad-hoc employees in the
year 2011, which provided that anyone who has
completed 10 years of continuous service as on
21.11.2011 against a sanctioned vacant post is eligible
for regularisation.
5
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
13. Thereafter, another set of regularisation rules were
framed in 2013, which provided that anyone who has
served continuously for 5 years as daily wager/work
charged/contract employee is entitled for regularisation.
Appellant’s father was entitled for regularisation under
the 2011 Regularisation Rules but his name was not
considered for considerable period of more than 11
yeras.
14. In the year 2021, exercise for regularising daily
wage employees serving in Forest Department was
undertaken by the State Government and a list of daily
wage employees, whose right of regularisation was
crystallized, was prepared after necessary exercise,
which was published on 05.01.2022. Issuance of
regularisation order however was kept on hold for
reasons best known to the authorities.
15. Now, the question which falls for consideration is as
to whether delay on the part of the competent authority
in issuing formal order of regularisation in respect of a
daily wage employee, who is found entitled for
regularisation, will have the effect of denuding the
dependents of such daily wage employee of the benefits,
which they would be entitled to, if there was no delay in
issuing regularisation order.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
regularisation committee, after undertaking the exercise
contemplated in Regularisation Rules found appellant’s
father to be entitled for regularisation, and issuance of
6
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
regularisation order thereafter was only a ministerial act
and appellant cannot be denied the benefit which he
would have received if the regularisation order was
issued simultaneously with publication of list of
employees, who were found entitled for regularisation.
17. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant.
18. Since a Regularisation Committee was constituted,
which examined the question of eligibility, suitability and
availability of vacancy etc., and appellant’s father was
found entitled for regularisation, and his name was
mentioned in the list of daily wage employees who were
to be regularised, which indicates that the long
satisfactory services rendered by appellant’s father were
duly recognised and inclusion of his name in the list
created a right in his favour. Delay, if any, on the part of
the competent authority in issuing regularisation order
therefore will not divest appellant of the right which his
father had earned, by inclusion of his name in the list of
employees who were to be regularised.
19. Even otherwise also, delay in issuing regularisation
order is not attributable to appellant or his father and
there is no plausible justification for the delay caused in
issuing formal regularisation order in favour of
appellant’s father.
20. Law is well settled that no one can take advantage
of his own wrong. Thus, appellant cannot be non suited
for compassionate appointment for a lapse on the part of
7
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
the competent authority in issuing formal regularisation
order in favour of his father in time. Even otherwise also,
in a case like present one, issuance of regularisation
order is a ministerial act which has to be performed by
the competent authority based on the recommendation
of Regularization Committee. The question of
qualification, inter-se seniority amongst daily wagers,
eligibility for regularisation and availability of vacancy,
etc. are relevant aspects which were to be considered by
the Regularisation Committee and the appointing
authority was required to issue formal order based on
determination made by regularisation committee. Thus,
the act of appointing authority of issuing regularisation
order is only ministerial in nature and delay on his part in
issuing formal order cannot have the effect of denuding
dependant family members of a daily wager of the
benefit which he earned after rendering continuous
satisfactory service for nearly three decades.
21. This is not a case where a person who is
recommended for appointment in an open selection dies
before issuance of formal appointment order, where it
can be contended that mere selection does not confer
indefeasible right of appointment and unless formally
appointed, no right will accrue to a selected candidate or
his dependant family members.
22. Present is the case where a daily wage employee,
has earned the right of regularisation after rendering
decades of satisfactory service and after fulfilling the
conditions of eligibility as per regularisation rules. Thus,
death of the daily wager, who is found entitled for
8
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
regularisation, will not divest his dependents of the
legitimate right to be considered for compassionate
appointment, merely because no formal order was
passed before death of such daily wage employee.
23. Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sangita
Thakur Vs. The State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 717 of
2023, while taking similar view has held as under:
32. The ground which has been taken by the State that the
husband of the appellant-writ petitioner was not holding
substantive post primarily which according to the considered
view of this court is having no substance for the following
reasons:
(i) The position of law is well settled that if a wrong
has been committed by anybody, no advantage can be
allowed to be taken by the said wrong doer. Reference in
this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. State
of Bihar and Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 447, wherein at para-14, it
has been laid down by making reference of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrutunjay Pani Vrs.
Narmada Bala Sasmal, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1353,
wherein an obligation is cast on a party and if he commits a
breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take
advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin
maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no
party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). The said
proposition has also been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Indore Development
Authority Vrs. Shailendra and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 412 as
would be evident from para-143 and 167 by quoting the
judgment rendered in the case of Mrutunjay Pani Vrs.
Narmada Bala Sasmal (supra), that no litigant can take the
benefit of his own wrong. The doctrine commodum ex injuria
sua nemo habere debet means convenience cannot accrue to
a party from his own wrong.
(ii) Herein, it is a commission of wrong but it can be
said to be in violation of the mandate of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court that too of the Constitution Bench
wherein as under paragraph-53, specific time was given to
conclude the process of regularization within the period of
six months but herein, the order of regularization was
passed on 03.03.2021 by accepting the recommendation
dated 19.05.2020.
(iii) Further the order passed by the Constitution Bench
rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
Vs. Uma Devi (3) (supra) has been flouted because the
deceased husband of the appellant-writ petitioner was found
to be in service since 13.06.2006 and as such, he had
9
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
completed 10 years of service on 12.02.2016 but very
surprisingly, the initiative was taken by the State after lapse
of four years without any explanation what to say about the
reasonable explanation.
(iv) It is the admitted case of the State that the
husband of the appellant-writ petitioner was fit to be
regularized and accordingly, he was regularized on
03.03.2021 but in the meantime, her husband had died then
question is that whether benefit of regularization can be
deprived which has been already been deprived to the
husband of the appellant-writ petitioner who was not alive to
see the fruits of the recommendation of regularization.
(v) Further, when the State has found the husband of
the appellant-writ petitioner fit and if the lapses has been
committed in not taking immediate decision of regularization
while the husband was working on a sanctioned post, how
can the State be allowed to take the ground of husband of
the appellant-writ petitioner not working against a
sanctioned post.
It is evident from the documents that the son of the
appellant writ petitioner was working but in the daily rated
capacity. The State has taken the same as a ground, which
according to the considered view of this Court, working in
daily rated capacity cannot be said to be a reason for denial
of the claim because when the State has taken first ground
while rejecting the appointment on compassionate ground
merely on the basis that the husband of the appellant-writ
petitioner was on daily rated capacity then how the ground
of daily rated employee be allowed to be taken by the State.
The matter would have been different if the dependant son
of the appellant-writ petitioner was on the substantive post,
then it would be understood that there was means of
survival and the family will not be put to starvation but that
is the situation herein. Exactly the similar issue has been
dealt with by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
L.P.A. No. 1483 of 2015 (O&M) wherein in the identical
facts, before taking decision of regularization, the concerned
employee had died and in such circumstances, the High
Court has considered the delay in issuance of order of
regularization of services cannot work to the disadvantage of
the dependants of the deceased employee. The relevant
paragraph of the said order is being referred as under:
“(4) Otherwise also, the admitted facts on record
reveal that the deceased had served for more than 21 years.
He was entitled to regularization of services as per
Government policy dated 18.03.2011. The eligibility
condition for regularization of services was that a daily
wager must have completed 10 years of service on or before
31.12.2006. The deceased employee admittedly fulfilled
those eligibility conditions. The delay in issuing the formal
order of regularization was attributable to the ministerial
exercise of the appellants and not to the deceased
employee. In terms of the Government policy, the status has
to be seen as on 31.12.2006 and he was admittedly eligible
for regularization on the said date. At best his status could
10
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
be seen on the date when the Government policy dated
18.03.2011 was issued and on that date also, he was very
much alive fulfilling the eligibility condition for regularization
of services. Still further, his claim was recommended for
regularization on 01.03.2011, namely, the date when he was
alive and in service. In this view of the matter, the delay in
issuance of order of regularization of services cannot work to
the disadvantage of the dependents of the deceased
employee. The services of late Bhola Singh therefore shall be
deemed to have been regularized as on 01.04.2011.
Consequently, he is taken to have died as a regular
employee thereby entitling the respondent eligible for
appointment on compassionate grounds under the ex gratia
policy and for grant of family pension.”
24. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana
in CWP No. 26809 of 2013, Babli Devi alias Kailash
Kumari Vs. State of Punjab and others, has held as
under:
“Heard.
It is to be noticed that Ramesh Kumar, late husband of
the petitioner, joined the services of the respondents as
Pump Operator on daily wages on 01.06.1991. He
worked as Pump Operator at various places in District
Hoshiarpur for 19 years and 10 months without any 3 of
6 break in service till 02.03.2011 i.e. the date of his
death.
In Gurdeep Kaur versus The State of Punjab and others
CWP No.3320 of 2013 decided on 10.02.2015 it was held
as under:-
"On due consideration of the matter, I am of the
view that stand of the respondents is unjust. The
policy such as grant of compassionate appointment
have to be viewed from the perspective of its
intended beneficial object and cannot be restricted
to technicalities. The husband of the petitioner was
indeed entitled to regularization in terms of the
regularization policy and would have certainly been
granted the benefit, had the will of providence not
prevailed. Undisputedly, his name had been sent up
for the benefit of regularization on 1.4.2011 and in
normal course, such a benefit ordinarily would have
flowed to the husband of the petitioner in which
eventuality, the petitioner's case for grant of
compassionate appointment in the event of the
death of her husband would have also been
considered appropriately."
11
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
Further in LPA No. 1483 of 2015 titled as State of Punjab
and others vs. Gurdeep Kaur decided on 16.05.2017 it
was held as under:-
"Otherwise also, the admitted facts on record reveal
that the deceased had served for more than 21
years. He was entitled to regularization of services
as per Government policy dated 18.03.2011. The
eligibility condition for regularization of services was
that a daily wager must have completed 10 years of
service on or before 31.12.2006. The deceased
employee admittedly fulfilled those eligibility
conditions. The delay in issuing the formal 4 of 6
order of regularization was attributable to the
ministerial exercise of the appellants and not to the
deceased employee. In terms of the Government
policy, the status has to be seen as on 31.12.2006
and he was admittedly eligible for regularization on
the said date. At best his status could be seen on
the date when the Government policy dated
18.03.2011 was issued and on that date also, he
was very much alive fulfilling the eligibility condition
for regularization of services. Still further, his claim
was recommended for regularization on 01.03.2011,
namely, the date when he was alive and in service.
In this view of the matter, the delay in issuance of
order of regularization of services cannot work to the
disadvantage of the dependents of the deceased
employee. The services of late Bhola Singh therefore
shall be deemed to have been regularized as on
01.04.2011. Consequently, he is taken to have died
as a regular employee thereby entitling the
respondent eligible for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the ex gratia policy
and for grant of family pension."
Keeping in view the dictum of law, this Court is of the
opinion that had the husband of the petitioner not died,
the benefit of regularization would have flowed to him
and he would have died as a regular employee. Thus, the
present civil writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P-10) is quashed. The
respondents are directed to notionally regularize the
service of late Ramesh Kumar-husband of the petitioner
with effect from the date, the services of his juniors were
regularised. The respondents are directed to reconsider
the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of 5 of 6
compassionate appointment by treating her husband as a
regular employee. The petitioner would also be entitled
to the benefit of family pension. The necessary exercise
be done within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment.”
25. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken
12
UKHC010135962026
2026:UHC:10139-DB
by Hon’ble Jharkhand high Court as well as Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by
learned Single Judge is interfereble.
27. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment, as well as the rejection order dated
30.09.2022, passed by Chief Conservator of Forest
(HRD), Dehradun and direct the Chief Conservator of
Forest (HRD), Dehradun to re-consider appellant’s claim
for compassionate appointment by treating his father to
be a regular Government servant.
______________________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 03.11.2026
Mahinder
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08
923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA
4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.11.06 18:24:42 +05'30'
MAHINDER SINGH
13