HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 59472 of 2009 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. List is revised. No one has put an appearance on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, even in the revised call. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 3.8.2009 issued by respondent no.3, communicating the order of respondent no.2 dated 3.8.2009 by means of which the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground, under Dying in Harness Rules has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as driver in Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly on contractual basis since 1.1.2004. The work and conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory, there being no complaint against him. The petitioner belongs to OBC category. He further submits that a representation has been given by the petitioner to appoint him on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, as petitioner's father was a daily wage/work charge employee who died in harness. The petitioner's father was a daily wage employee and was employed as Mate in Bareilly Development Authority since 1982. He further contends Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hanuman Prasad Dube, Nitin Agarwal, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, Umesh Narain Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Tiwari, Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, Satyam Singh, Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Lal Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) that the services of the petitioner's father were retrenched by the Bareilly Development Authority, against which he filed an industrial dispute case before the Labour Court, Bareilly. The Labour Court, Bareilly decided the claim in favour of the petitioner's father, directing the Bareilly Development Authority to reinstate the services of the petitioner's father along with back wages. Against the aforesaid award, the respondents filed a Writ Petition No.20299 of 1990 before this Court, wherein interim order was granted in favour of the respondents. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner's father died on 15.11.2003. The writ petition came to be finally decided on 5.2.2009, wherein an award of Rs.30,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner's father as compensation and damages, however, it was observed that it was not possible to reinstate the father of the petitioner in services. The petitioner had moved an application before the authorities concerned to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, in view of the orders passed by the labour court, whereby the petitioner's father was directed to be reinstated. However, as there was interim order in favour of the respondents against the aforesaid award granted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. In the writ petition, finally an observation had come that there is no possibility of reinstatement of petitioner's father in service. Considering the aforesaid facts that the petitioner's father is a work charge employee and in view of the orders passed in the writ petition as filed by the respondents against the award, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order impugned is illegal, unjust and arbitrary as earlier the labour court had directed for reinstatement of the petitioner's father and the Writ Court while dismissing the petition has not observed in detail about the retrenchment of the petitioner's father, which was considered by the labour court while directing for his reinstatement, therefore, treating the petitioner not to be in job, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law. The petitioner has also been offered appointment as driver on 1.1.2004 on contractual basis and he is continuing in service till date. In case the petitioner was not entitled for any appointment, he should not have been offered appointment that too on contractual basis on 1.1.2004 and he is WRIA No. 59472 of 2009 2 continuously rendering his services till date. The order impugned is un- reasoned, illegal and arbitrary in the eyes of law. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned as there is no provision of appointment on compassionate ground for dependent of work charge employee. He further contends that the orders of the Writ Court also do not permit the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed, accordingly. October 9, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh WRIA No. 59472 of 2009 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad