IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NANITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1294 (SS) OF 2005 Vijay Pal Singh, S/o late Itwari Lal, r/o Village Salarpur, P.O. Rehta Maphee, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Health Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Chief Medical Officer, Uttarkashi, (Uttaranchal). ……………Respondents. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: 27.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner Itwari Lal was Safai Karmachari (Class-IV) employee at Medical Health Department Banchaura Uttarkashi. He died in harness on 23.10.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has applied for compassionate appointment on 11.05.2004 by way of representation but the same has not yet been considered. 4. 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 2 providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship 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 of years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 5. 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 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.” 6. Therefore, as will appear from the aforesaid judgment that the object of the grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is to help the 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 3 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.” 7. 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 that distress of the family. 8. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. 9. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 27.02.2006 Rathour