IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 866 (SS) OF 2005 Bhanu Sanwal, S/o late Daya Kishan Sanwal, R/o Village-Devla Talla Semlar, P.O.- Kunwarpur, Tehsil- Haldwani, District-Nainital. ………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sitarganj, District- Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal, through its General Manager. 2. Cane Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. District Cane Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, District – Udham Singh Nagar. …………Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. Dated:28.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules and to give his suitable appointment according to his qualification. Briefly stated, the father of the petitioner namely Sri Daya Kishan Sanwal, who was a permanent employee on the post of Weighing Clerk in the respondent no.1, posted at Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, died in harness on 15.02.2004. He is survived by his wife, three daughters and one son of 9 years and the petitioner. 2 After the death of the father of the petitioner, mother of the petitioner moved an application (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) before the respondents for appointment of petitioner in place of his deceased husband under the Dying in Harness Rules. Grievance of the petitioner is that move than a year has passed from the date of death of his father, but the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is not being given to him. The Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468 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.” The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 has relied upon the judgment of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468. The relevant observations are quoted below:- “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 3 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.” “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 change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” It is well settled that appointment on the compassionate ground is purely humanitarian consideration because of the fact that family will not be able to make both ends meet. The purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying-in-harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. Thus compassionate appointment is treated to alleviate the distress of the family. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to decide the representation (Annexure Nos. 3 to the writ petition) of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner according to law. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 28.03.2006 Rathour 4