HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 370 (SS) of 2004 Pushpa Sharma vs. State of Uttaranchal and others Approved for reporting. _______________________ Date of decision: 04.06.2004 Initial of Judge 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 370 of 2004 Pushpa Sharma ………. Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & others ………… Respondents Sri M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner Miss Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. Dated: 4.6.2004 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner namely Sri R.P. Sharma was working as a work charge Beldar in the office of the Executive Engineer, Upper Ganga Nahar Adhunikikaran Khand- 6 Roorkee, District Hardwar who died in harness on 5.12.2003 in a motor accident. The petitioner has submitted that after the death of her husband she moved an application on 21.1.2003 to the Executive Engineer, Upper Ganga Canal Adhunikikaran Khand-6 Roorkee for appointment under Dying in Harness 2 Rules. The Executive Engineer informed the petitioner vide letter dated 21.2.2004 that there is no provision to give appointment under Dying in Harness Rules to the dependants of a work-charge employee. The petitioner has placed reliance on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Smt. Shushma Gosai and others vs. Union of India and others, 1989 (4) SCC, 468. The Apex Court 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 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. In the result, we allow the appeal and in reversal of the order of the High Court, we direct respondent 2 to appoint Sushma Gosain appellant in the post to which she has already qualified. We further direct that she shall be appointed in an appropriate place in Delhi itself. The appointment shall be made within three weeks from today.” So far as the work-charge employees are concerned it has been held in the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & others (2002) 1 UPLBEC 3371 that the deceased employee continuously in employment since 13 years is entitled to all benefits available to regular employees. The dependent of 3 deceased employee is entitled to be considered under Dying in Harness Rules. In view of above, the respondents are directed to consider the dependants of the deceased work-charge employee for appointment on compassionate ground. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, within one month after filing of the certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 4.6.2004 *Dhyani