IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NANITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 223 (SS) OF 2006 Sunil Kumar, S/o Late Harpal Singh, R/o Village Lalchandwala, Tehsil-Laksar, District – Haridwar. …………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries, Dehradun. 2. Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Uttaranchal, at Kashipur, District – Udham Singh Nagar. 3. District Sugar Cane Development Officer, Haridwar, District – Haridwar. 4. Sahakari Ganna Viaks Samiti Ltd., Laksar, District – Haridwar, through its Secretary. ……….Respondents. Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: 27.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in the Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Laksar, District- Haridwar for which the petitioner is fully eligible. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of he petitioner late Sri Harpal Singh was posted on the post of Samayik Lipik (Seasonal Clerk) at Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Laksar. He died on 01.09.2005 in harness. 2 After the death of his father, the petitioner moved a representation for being appointed under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. According to the petitioner, he is fully eligible for being appointed on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules on Class-III post as he is having qualification of B.A. On 23.01.2006, respondent no. 2 issued a letter in which it has been mentioned that the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules are not applicable in the case of seasonal workers and the same is governed by the Co-operative Cane Services Rules, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the respondent no. 2 it appears that the representation preferred by the petitioner has not yet been disposed of, but the respondents are saying orally that they will not consider the claim of the petitioner as the Govt. of U.P. had already issued a Govt. Order dated 26.05.2000 not to give appointment in the case of seasonal workers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the father of he petitioner was only bread-earner in the family and after his death the whole family is facing financial crisis. The Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468 has held 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 3 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 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.” 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 deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the 4 status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” In Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. [(2002) 1 UPLBEC 337. It has been held as under:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Raj Narain Prasad (Supra), for stressing his submission that the petitioner’s father would be deemed to have been a regular Government servant in view of the fact that his appointment has been converted into work charge employee in pursuance of the scheme approved by the Apex Court. He further submitted that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Pushp Lata Dixit Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others, reported in 1991 (18) ALR 591, the petitioner is entitled for getting the appointment. In this case, the husband of Smt. Pushp Lata was working as a Paid Apprentice. The plea that he was not a regular employee although he had been working in the department for the last 17 years was not entitled for appointment under Dying in Harness Rule was rejected by the Court and the directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner (Smt. Pushp Lata) according to her qualifications relying upon this case, the writ petition filed by Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1998 (79) FLR 608, was also allowed in which the High Court found that the petitioner’s husband in that case has satisfactorily worked for about 10 years, until his death and though be may be daily wager, the petitioner can be accommodated on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. In the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 (3) ESC 2187 (All): 1 UPLBEC 5 (Alld.) (Sum) 15, the benefit was given to the temporary appointee as he was working against a substantive vacancy.” “The Apex Court was considering the scheme and the status of a work-charge employee even after being confirmed it has been held that a work charge employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work charge employee and he continues to be a word charge employee. The question of regularization against a regular vacancy was not in issue before the Apex Court. No rule, law of any Government order has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State to indicate that any terminal benefits have been provided to the work charge employee who have to their credit a considerable period of service and even in cases after very longer period of service, they retire as such. Even no provision for confirmation of a work charge employee as a work charge employee is available in the State of Uttar Pradesh nor any such provision has been shown by the learned State Counsel despite being specifically asked for.” “It may also be taken note of that if daily wager or a work charge employee is engaged against a particular duty or post, and that work is of perennial nature, the presumption would be that such an employee would be entitled for being treated to have been continuing against a regular vacancy.” 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 6 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, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 23.01.2006. The respondent no. 3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner on merits expeditiously. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 27.02.2006 Rathour