2026:UHC:262 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/2242/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Mr. Sanjay Bhatt and Mr. Prem Prakash Bhatt, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the Amendment Application (IA No. 1 of 2025), therefore, the same be dismissed as not pressed. 4. Accordingly, the Amendment Application (IA No. 1 of 2025) is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Petitioner’s father was engaged as contractual employee in Government Medical College, Haldwani, whose services were regularised, pursuant to Regularisation Rules, 2016, vide order dated 23.12.2016. The Regularisation Rules, 2016 was later declared unconstitutional by learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition and thereafter State Government notified another set of Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regularisation order passed in favour of the petitioner’s father was never set aside or cancelled. Petitioner’s father died while in service on 29.12.2024. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Her application was forwarded to the State 2026:UHC:262 Government for decision. The State Government, thereafter, referred the matter to the Directorate of Medical Education. 7. Since no decision has been taken in the matter so far, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:- “i- A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the claim of Petitioner for appointment on any suitable group “C” posts on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules with all consequential benefits.” 8. Learned State Counsel submits that State Government had notified Weightage Point and Relaxation in Age Limit to the Personnel Regularised under Regularisation (Amendment) Rules, 2016, in Direct Recruitment Rules, 2018, therefore, the claim of petitioner’s father for regularisation was to be considered as per the said Rules. He submits that since the fresh regularisation order was not passed in respect of petitioner’s father, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Dying-in-Harness Rules, as her father was not a regular employee. He further submits that petitioner’s father had filed a writ petition during his lifetime, which is still pending before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the regularisation order passed in favour of petitioner’s father was not set aside or cancelled, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents that fresh regularisation order has to be passed in respect of petitioner’s father, is not 2026:UHC:262 correct. 10. Be that as it may, since the matter is pending consideration before the respondents, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, Medical Education, Uttarakhand to look into the matter and pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 7.1.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb 4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653 D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.07 17:44:34 +05'30'