2025:UHC:8233 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1493/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Reituparna Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. (2) Petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is rejected by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. on the ground that learned Labour Court had only directed for payment of certain benefits to petitioner’s father and there was no direction issued by Labour Court for regularization of his service. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Rule 2(A)(3) of U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975, which includes such employees in the definition of ‘employee of the board’ who even though not regularly appointed but have served continuously against a permanent vacancy for three years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner’s father late Sobat Singh was engaged as daily wager in erstwhile U.P. Electricity Board in 1986 and his services were terminated on 1.8.1987. Sri Sobat Singh raised industrial dispute and learned Labour Court gave an award in favour of Sri Sobat Singh declaring his termination to be unjust and illegal and directed for his reinstatement in service with continuity of service. He further submits that the award rendered by learned Labour Court attained finality after dismissal of employer’s writ petition by this Court. Thus he submits that 2025:UHC:8233 in view of the award rendered by the Labour Court, as affirmed by this Court, petitioner’s father shall be deemed to have been working as a daily wager continuously since 1987, therefore petitioner’s case would be covered by Rule 2(A)(3) of the aforesaid Rules, which aspect however was completely ignored by the Managing Director. (4) Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam & Another v. Suresh Chandra Auli, reported as 2012 (1) UD 6. However, the facts of the said case are not attracted here as petitioner’s claim has been rejected only on the ground that Labour Court had not granted any relief for regular appointment of petitioner’s father. (5) In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 9.6.2025, passed by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. is set aside. The matter is remitted back to Managing Director to reconsider petitioner’s claim, as per law, and take decision within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.9.2025 Pr 2025:UHC:8233