2026:UHC:1879 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 7 9 3 / 2 0 2 2 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate, i/ b Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy AG, for the State. (2) Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Her claim was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 21.2.2022 by holding that her case is not covered by Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as amended in 2010. Petitioner has challenged the said rejection order. (3) It is not in dispute that petitioner’s husband was engaged as Shiksha Mitra and he was given provisional appointment as Assistant Teacher in 2015 with the condition that will have to clear Teachers Eligibility Test. (4) Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner’s husband failed to clear the Teachers Eligibility Test, therefore, he cannot be treated as a Teacher. He further submits that since Shiksha Mitra is a contractual engagement and petitioner’s husband was not given regular appointment as Teacher and he was provisionally appointed subject to his clearing Teachers Eligibility Test, therefore, he cannot be treated as a government servant and, therefore, claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is without any basis. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon clause (iii) of sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which provides that anyone, who has put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy under employment of State Government would also be treated as 2026:UHC:1879 government servant. He submits that this aspect was overlooked by the State Government while rejecting petitioner’s claim. (6) Learned State Counsel, however, submits that since petitioner’s husband was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, therefore, his legal heir cannot claim compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. (7) Be that as it may, since the State Government has rejected the claim of petitioner on the premise that petitioner’s husband was not a government servant and the State Government has not considered Rule 2(a)(iii) of Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, matter is remitted back to the State Government to revisit the issue in the light of the discussion made above. This Court hopes and expects that appropriate order shall be passed by the State Government within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (8) Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 8 .3 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3 aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB5880 52DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.19 10:33:22 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1879