IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 559 of 2004 Smt. Vidyotama Thapliyal …….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. ….Respondents. Present : Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the Central Government/respondents. Date of Decision :- 13.8.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Branch Post Master, Village Deusa on compassionate ground. Apart from this by means of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.3.2004. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The husband of the petitioner was working as a Branch Post Master (E.D.A) at Post Office Deusa (Kanskhet), District Pauri Garhwal since 1982 on permanent basis. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the post on which the husband of the petitioner was working is the post of a Village Post Master, in a remote hill village. The husband of the petitioner died on 11.8.2001 leaving behind his mother, wife (i.e. the petitioner) and two minor daughters and a minor son. Since there was financial hardship in the family, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased promptly applied for appointment on compassionate ground and her papers were forwarded to the concerned Authorities. Annexure-2 to the writ petition filed by the petitioner is a letter asking for certain 2 documents from the petitioner in order to appoint her as a Branch Post Master on compassionate grounds. However, vide a cryptic order dated 7.3.2003, the petitioner was informed by the Department that her case for appointment on compassionate grounds was examined by the Divisional Office and was not found suitable, and therefore, her application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in the order as to on what grounds the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Thereafter against the said order, the petitioner also filed an Appeal, which was also rejected by order dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Again, this order explains nothing! All it says is that the case of the petitioner has not been found suitable for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. The husband of the petitioner was working in the Indian Postal Department. It is a legitimate expectation of an employee to expect from a welfare State that in case of a contingency where the family has to face hardship where the only bread-winner of the family dies in harness, appointment of a family member will be at least duly considered under the Dying in Harness Rules and such appointments, in case the rules permit, shall be made. The fact of the present case is that the deceased has left his mother, wife and three minor children. There was no earning member in the family at the time of death of the deceased and the family required assistance from the State Government on compassionate grounds, which was clearly denied. No reasons whatsoever have been assigned in the order for denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. It is not the case of the respondents that a belated application has been filed by the family member of the deceased. It is also not the case of the 3 respondents that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds as she comes under the definition of the family as stipulated under the relevant Rules. There are no reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Vikas Pande now contends that one of the reasons for not appointing the petitioner perhaps is that at the relevant date, the husband of the petitioner was off his duties. Relevant paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit reads as under:- “5. That the contents of para no-4 of the writ petition is admitted but was placed put off duty. The Copy of the order dated 20-7-2001 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure. C.A. -1 to this Counter Affidavit.” 6. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted as there is no reason whatsoever given by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, a bald assertion has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner was off duty at the relevant time which means nothing, for the purposes of the present case. The husband of the petitioner still had lien on his post and that is what matters. 7. Under these circumstance, this Court directs respondent no. 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post, which is suitable for her qualifications, on compassionate grounds in the Postal Department as early as possible, and definitely within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 8. The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.8.2010 Rathour