IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 299 of 2011 Kushal Singh …………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The father of the petitioner was working in a Work Charge Establishment in Public Works Department and died in the year, 1992. Admittedly, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment under relevant Dying in Harness Rules for the first time on 15th February, 2006. When this application was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1204 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by directing the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, P.W.D., Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal to consider the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the Executive Officer of the concerned Division on 2.9.2009. However, the reason assigned for rejecting the application was that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 2 Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 such an appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court. The reason for dismissing the candidature of the petitioner on compassionate ground given in the order dated 2.9.2009 may or may not be applicable in the present case as the counsel for the petitioner contends that Uma Devi case is not on compassionate appointment under relevant Dying in Harness Rules. Be that as it may, the application of the petitioner was not liable to be considered inasmuch as the father of the petitioner admittedly died in the year 1992 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules in the year, 2006 i.e. after a period of fourteen years. In the affidavit, the petitioner discloses his age as 32 years. As such, at the relevant time when he moved the application, his age would have been about 26 years. The petitioner could have applied at least eight years prior to the date when he actually applied. Therefore, his application under Dying in Harness Rules is itself highly belated. There is another aspect to this matter. Father of the petitioner admittedly died in the year 1992 and the application for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rule was moved in the year 2006. Appointment under Dying in Harness Rules are primarily made by the Department so that the family, which has lost its only breadwinner overcomes the immediate hardships, which is befallen on the family. Since the death itself took place in the year 1992, the application moved for compassionate appointment was highly belated. Moreover, the petitioner has filed this writ 3 petition in the year 2011 i.e. after two years from the date it was rejected. So there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner as well. The writ petition though is being dismissed in limine as it lacks merit as this Court is of the considered view that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not liable to be given appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 06.4.2011 Rathour