IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.885 (SS) OF 2004 Smt. Sur Suti, Widow of late Sir Munni Lal, R/o Research Centre, Patharchatta, Post Office Haldi, District Udham singh Nagar. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, through its Registrar. 2. Vice Chancellor, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar ………………Respondents. Mr.Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondents. Dated :09.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith give regular appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Briefly stated, the father in law of the petitioner namely Sri Nanhu was a regular employee of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar, who was appointed on the post of Mali with effect from 20.12.1974. He died in harness on 11.01.1996 leaving behind 2 the petitioner and her minor children as the only legal representative. The petitioner’s husband had died much earlier to the death of his father and the father in law of the petitioner took up all the responsibilities of supporting the petitioner and her minor children after the death of her husband. After the death of her father in law, the petitioner moved an application on 15.04.1996 before the respondents, whereby a request was made to give compassionate appointment in the University in place of her father in law stating the financial status of the family. Petitioner was given appointment as a daily wager on contract basis w.e.f. 01.07.1998 after considering thue grave financial crisis which she was undergoing. Petitioner has submitted that the meager amount which is paid to the petitioner is hardly sufficient to make both the ends meet. Petitioner has submitted that she has filed many representation regarding her grievances, but the same have not been considered. One such representation is dated 19.05.2004. Petitioner has referred the case of (Smt.) Urmila Devi and U.P. Power Corporation and others [2003 (11) AIC 951 (Alld., H.C.)], where it has been held that the daughter in law is also entitled to claim compassionate appointment. Relevant observations are quoted below:- “It has not been disputed that petitioner and her children in the wake of death of Sri Anil Kumar, were being looked after and sustained on the earning of late Kishun Lal and after the only bread earner, the petitioner and her children have been left igh and dry without any means and resources to fall back upon and at this srtage, to decline appointment on punctilious reading of the efinition of family in the Rules, 1975, would be too preposterous for the family 3 and may land them stranded and would mock at the scheme and its underlying object inasmuch as the object underlying the compassionate appointment being to mitigate the hardship, the denial on the fallacy that her appointment was not permissible within the definition of ‘Family’ contemplated in the Rules, 1975 would be in antagonism of the constitutional provisions enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the legislature must be deemed to have intended to include daughter-in-law in the ‘family’ regard being had to the inclusive definition of the term ‘family’ in the instant case. 7. As a result of foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the word ‘family’ in the provisions must be construed liberally having due regard to the inclusive definition of the term ‘family’ as define in and object soughjt to be serve by the Rules. The peeitioner in thue instant case being heir of the predeceased son and beign depandent for sustenance on thue deceased employee Kishun Lal, is entitled to be construed as one of the family members of the deceased in view of the inclusive definition of the word ‘family’ and is thus entitled to be considered for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 aforestated.” 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 4 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.” “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 5 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 consider the representation (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the observations made above within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 09.03.2006 Rathour………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………