IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 417 (SS) OF 2005 Ashish Kumar Srivastava, S/o late Suresh Prasad Srivastava, R/o Ward No. 25, Lohia Nagar, Maharajganj, District-Maharajganj (U.P.) ……………..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Education Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Director of Education (Basic), Uttaranchal, 2, Subhash Road, Dehradun. 3. Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Kumaon Division, Nainital. 4. District Basic Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Manager/Principal, Prag Narain Junior High School, Gokul Nagar, District- Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Dated: 08.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Shilendra S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner and Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent no. 5. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (I.T. Grade) in Prag Narain Junior High School, Gokul 2 Nagar, District-Udham Singh Nagar on compassionate grounds. 3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, his father late Shri Suresh Prasad Srivastava was working on the post of Head Master in Prag Narain Junior High School, Gokul Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is an aided school. He died on 04.12.2001 while in service leaving behind the petitioner and his other legal representatives. 4. After the death of his father, the petitioner, who is a graduate and having the qualification of B.Ed, moved an application on 21.01.2002 for compassionate appointment along with the affidavit of no objections. 5. On receiving the application of the petitioner dated 21.01.2002, respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 2 on 01.02.2002 stating therein that Government Order with regard to compassionate appointment is not available in the office. 6. Respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 3 on 25/27.01.2003 requesting him to give the necessary instructions to the respondent no. 4 in the matter of appointment of the petitioner in the school on compassionate ground. 7. On 26.03.2003, the respondent no.3 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 4 by which he required the application of petitioner along with other necessary documents for appointment of the petitioner in the School on compassionate ground. 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the respondent no. 4 vide his letter dated 2/4.04.2003 sent the application of the petitioner along with other necessary documents to the respondent no. 3 for action into the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. 3 9. Thereafter, the petitioner made various applications for the appointment under U.P. Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 adopted by the State of Uttaranchal, but of no avail. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a G.O. dated 31.01.1997, which provides that in the case of death of an employee, who is working in junior High School in harness, his/her one legal heir will be provided employment in the same school or any other school on compassionate ground. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred the G.O. dt. 04.09.2000, which provides that in the case of death of teaching/non-teaching staff, working under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, will provide employment in the department on compassionate ground. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 5, where it has been stated as under:- “5. That in reply to the contents of paragraph n.6 of the Writ petition, it is stated that there was no vacancy on the post of teacher available in the institution in question and this fact has been stated in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. It may be pointed out here that there are four Institution. After the death of one Assistant Teacher namely Sri Rajendra Prasad Verma on 19.08.2005 one post of Assistant Teacher had fallen vacant in the Institution. Sri Rajednra Prasad Verma was a member of O.B.C. Category, however, the said post is now directed to be filled by appointing a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. It would not be out of context to mention here that the vacancy which has occurred due to death of Sri Rajendra Prasad Verma is on the post of Language Teacher as the petitioner is a Science Graduate who cannot be appointed as a Language Teacher. There is no Language Teacher serving the Institution at present.” 4 13. 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 to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” 9. 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.” 5 “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.” 15. 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 the distress of the family. 16. In view of the above, respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the representation/application dated 21.02.2002 filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order taking into consideration the recommendation of the B.S.A. and both the government orders. 17. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 08.03.2006 Rathour