STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MEERA NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohan Singh Negi was appointed as a Shramik (Worker), on daily wage basis, by the Forest Department on 01.01.1980. He admittedly continued to render service uninterruptedly in the aforesaid capacity till 10.07.2003. On 10.07.2003, the Conservator of Forests issued an order, for regularising the employment of daily wage workers. A list of 20 names was appended to the aforesaid order. The name of the aforesaid Mohan Singh Negi appeared at Serial No. 13 thereof. Column 11 of the list (referred to above) depicted the date, with effect from which, the concerned employees were in continuous service. For the aforesaid Mohan Singh Negi, Column No. 11 depicted the aforesaid date as 01.01.1980. Column 12 mentioned the dates, when the concerned employees became eligible for regularisation. For the aforesaid Mohan Singh Negi, the date mentioned in Column 12 was 05.01.1981.

(2.) It is not a matter of dispute, that all persons named in the list, appended to the letter of the Conservator of Forests dated 10.07.2003 (Annexure No. 1), were regularised in terms of the recommendation made, except the aforesaid Mohan Singh Negi. The only reason, for not issuing a formal order of regularisation was, that Mohan Singh Negi died on 02.12.2003, by which time, no order of regularisation had been issued. It would also be pertinent to mention, that it is not disputed between the parties, that the communication dated 10.07.2003 (Annexure No. 1) was issued by the Conservator of Forests in furtherance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & others Vs. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, which was decided on 21.02.2002.

(3.) After the death of her husband Mohan Singh Negi, the respondent Meera Negi submitted a representation dated 28.02.2004, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as the "Dying in Harness Rules"). The Dying in Harness Rules were adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, after its creation. Since the respondent did not receive any response to her representation, she submitted another representation dated 20.05.2004. The instant representation, submitted by the respondent, was rejected by the appellants vide an order dated 04.06.2004.