HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WPSS No. 1003/2006 (Old No. 32436/1997) Sri Sheo Ram S/o Dhani Ram Vs Union of India Through Chief Post Master Garhwal Mandal Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 24.2.2006 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL 2 WRIT PETITION No. 1003 (S/S) OF 2001 (Old No. 32436/1997) Sri Sheo Ram S/o Sri Dhani Ram, R/o Village Gaura Gaon, P.O. Balua Kot, District – Pithoragarh ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through Chief Post Master General, U.P. Parimandal, Lucknow. 2. The Sahayak Nideshak (Recruitment), Office of the Chief Post Master General U.P. Parimandal, Lucknow. 3. The Superintendent of Post Office, Pithoragarh. ………Respondents. 24.02.2006 Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Bipin Mohan Pingal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner in class IV post on the compassionate grounds. Briefly stated the father to the petitioner late Sri Dhani Ram was employee in the Postal Department at Pithoragarh and he died in 1953 when he service. The petitioner has made a representation dated 13.02.1989 and further in the year 1997 but the department has not given any appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. “Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules provides as under:- 5.“[Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased] 3 (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant in not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person- (i) fulfils the educational qualification prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant; Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement, as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government Servant was employed prior to his death.” 4 In the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468, the Apex Court has observed as under:- “We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 after relying upon the judgment of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468 it has been held by the Apex Court as under:- “The whole object of granting compassionate employment in thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to; be offered to the eligible member of the family.” Therefore, as will appears from the aforesaid judgment that the object of the grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. The object is to help the 5 deceased family from starvation and not to make a selection. In the same judgment it has also been observed as under:- “It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the charge in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” As will appear form the aforesaid decisions that the appointment on compassionate ground should not be delayed as it being not a recruitment but its object is to help the deceased family from starvation and further to save from the hardship caused to the family after the death of the bread earner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 24.02.2006 Jain