Named For Regularisation 3 Days Before His Death, 29-Year Daily-Wager Must Be Treated As Regular For Son’s Compassionate-Appointment Claim: Uttarakhand HC

The appellant’s father had served continuously as a daily-wage employee in the Forest Department since 1 April 1993. Following a regularisation exercise, his name was included in the list of employees found entitled to regularisation, published on 5 January 2022. He died on 8 January 2022, before a formal regularisation order was issued.

The appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that his father had not become a regular Government servant.

The High Court’s Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the father remained a daily-wage employee at death and did not qualify as a “Government Servant” under Rule 2(a) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The appellant appealed.

Under Rule 2(a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as applicable in Uttarakhand, compassionate appointment is available to eligible dependants of a Government servant; ordinarily, a daily-wage employee does not qualify.

The applicable regularisation rules provided eligibility criteria for regularisation of daily-wage and other employees, including the 2011 Rules and the 2013 Rules.

The Court applied the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong, relying on Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and authorities discussed in Sangita Thakur v. State of Jharkhand.

It also relied on State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, which addressed regularisation of daily-wage employees, and on decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that administrative delay in issuing a formal regularisation order should not prejudice an employee’s dependants where the employee was eligible and the delay was attributable to the State.

The Court found that the father had rendered nearly three decades of continuous service and that the regularisation committee had assessed eligibility, suitability and vacancy availability before including his name in the list of employees to be regularised.

In those circumstances, the inclusion evidenced that his entitlement had been determined; issuing the formal order was a ministerial act, and the authority’s delay could not divest him—or his dependants—of the benefit earned through his service.

The Court distinguished cases where a selected candidate dies before appointment, because the father’s case concerned regularisation after long service and satisfaction of the applicable eligibility requirements, not merely selection in an open recruitment process.

It therefore held that the appellant’s claim could not be rejected solely because the formal order had not issued before his father’s death, and agreed with the approach taken by the Jharkhand and Punjab and Haryana High Courts.

It directed the Chief Conservator of Forest (HRD), Dehradun, to reconsider the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment by treating his father as a regular Government servant.