IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 149 of 2006 Union of India . .……… Appellant Versus Rajendra Ram S/o Late Dilip Ram ……… Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Shri Suresh Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the opposite party. This Special Appeal is against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 13th February, 2006 whereby the orders of the authority dated 29/10/2003 and 03/07/2004 were quashed by which the application of the writ petitioner (now “respondent” in the special appeal) for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. The learned Single Judge found that the application of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was filed at the earliest opportune moment and that the Rules of employment under the Dying in Harness Scheme was to mitigate the hardship that was caused to the family upon the death of the bread earner. The learned Single Judge found that the compassionate appointment are required to be given to elevate the distress that was caused upon the family on account of the unexpected death of the head of the family. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the writ petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. The respondent, being aggrieved, has filed the special appeal. The appellant has annexed the extract of the Rules relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds. Paragraph 4 of the 2 said scheme indicates that if an application of a candidate is rejected and his appointment is not recommended for want of vacancy, the applicant’s case could be considered afresh on three subsequent occasions. In the light of this provision, the learned Single Judge has only directed the respondents to reconsider his application and if the writ petitioner is found meritorious and a vacancy is available, the same has to be considered by the appellant/respondent. Consequently, in the light of the provisions contained in paragraph 4 of the scheme, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. The special appeal fails and is dismissed as such. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) 29.10.2009 LSR / Shiv