Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17651 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7055 of 2019 Petitioner :- Daya Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Forest Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard Shri S.P. Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on the post of Watcher (Guard) on the pretext that his late father namely, Bindeshwari, S/o- Dukhi Prasad had worked from January, 1991 to October, 1999 on daily wages. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the promulgation of U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001, the father of the petitioner had not worked and he died in the year 2018 and in case, his services had been regularized, the petitioner would have been considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgement and order dated 1.3.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 89 of 2017 (State of U.P. & others vs. Kuldeep Thakur). Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the late father of the petitioner had worked from January, 1991 to October, 1999 only on daily wages and he had not worked after October, 1999. He further submits that the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) is distinct. In that case, Kuldeep Thakur had worked till the year 2015 and his case for regularization was not considered and thus, considering the future prospects, the judgement was passed in that case. The present case is totally different. In view of the above, while passing the impugned order dated 18.5.2016 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), the representation of late Bindeshwari was decided. The relevant part thereof is being extracted herein below: " ककरकरलर मम उपलबध अभभललखख कल अननसकर रकचच सस० 6 शच भवनदलशवरच सनत दनखच पसकद दकरक पसतनत ककरर भववरण कल अननसकर ददभनक पकररशभमक पर जनवरच 1991 सल अकटटबर 1999 तक ददभनक पकररशभमक पर ककरर भदखकरक गरक हद। नवमबर 1999 सल वरर 2001 तक ककरर करनक नहच भदखकरक गरक हद वतरमकन मम ककरररत नहच हद। उक ककरर भववरण कक पनभष भवभकगचर अभभललखख सल नहच हखतच हद। रकचच सस० 6 दकरक पसतनत अभभललखख शकसनकदलश भदनकसक 13.08.2015 एसव उ०प० समटह घ भवभनरभमभतकरण भनरमकवलच 2001 कल अननसकर रकचच सस० 6 शच भवनदलशवरच सनत दनखच पसकद कक भनरनभक ददभनक पकररशभमक पर समटह 'घ' पद पर नहच कक गरच थच और न हच भवभनरभमभतकरण भनरमकवलच 2001 भनगरत हखनल कक भतथथ 21.12.2001 कख भवभकग मम ककरररत थल और वतरमकन मम भच रकचच ककरररत नहच हद।" Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the late father of the petitioner worked only from January, 1991 to October, 1999 on daily wages. At the time of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, 2001, he was not working. After October 1999, the late father of the petitioner had never worked. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment in place of his late father. The compassionate appointments are given in accordance with the provisions under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 to the dependents of the government servants who die in harness. Rule 2(a) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 defines a government servant, which is extracted below: "2. (a) "Government servant" means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who- (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment. Explanation. - "Regularly appointed" means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the case may be;" A perusal of the aforesaid definition shows that if the son of the deceased wants to avail the benefit of the Rules, 1974, he would have to show that the deceased was permanent in such employment or though not regularly appointed, but had put in three years' continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment. In the present case, the late father of the petitioner was a daily wager employee. He was a temporary employee who was not regularly appointed and also he had not put in three years of continuous service in regular vacancy. Thus, so far as the judgement in the case of Kuldeep Thakur (supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are distinct as to the present case. In that case, the late father of the petitioner, Kuldeep Thakur worked continuously since 01.10.1991 till 13.08.2015 on daily wages and three months prior to his death, the State Government took a policy decision to consider for regularization of service of the daily wagers w.e.f. 29.06.1991 to 31.03.1996 and consequently, the petitioner Kuldeep Thakur was appointed on compassionate ground as his father had been regularized. In the present case, since the late father of the petitioner had not worked after October, 1999 and he was not engaged as daily wager on the cut-off date i.e., 21.12.2001 when the Regularization Rules, 2001 came into force, thus, the matter of regularization of Bindeshwari was refused and accordingly, as a consequence, the petitioner also cannot be given compassionate appointment in place of his late father. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench