IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1564 (SS) of 2011 Satyavaan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Dying in Harness Rules”) 3. The case of the petitioner is that while his father was working as Assistant Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School died in harness on 17.03.1995. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was minor of only six years of age. The mother of the petitioner moved an application before the appropriate authority in the year 2000 that the appointment may be given to her son on compassionate ground after he becomes major. Since the appointment was not made after the petitioner attained majority, he had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 460 (SS) of 2008 before this Court, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by order dated 10.12.2010 with the direction to the Director of Education, District Dehradun to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner moved a representation before the concerned authority, which was rejected by order dated 2 26.09.2011, which is presently impugned in the writ petition (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 4. The main reason assigned by the concerned authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is that as per provisions of the “Dying in Harness Rules” appointment on compassionate ground can only be made within a period of five years from the date such death has occurred. In the present case, at the time of death of father of the petitioner, he was minor and the application has been moved by him after more than 11 years. Therefore, the application is highly belated. On this ground representation of the petitioner was rejected, as the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground under the provisions of “Dying in Harness Rules” as the limit for such appointment is for five years. 5. The Court finds no ground for interference in the present matter. The sole purpose of making appointment under the “Dying in Harness Rules” is that the family who has lost but only bread winner is able to meet immediately hardship, which is befallen upon the family. In the present case, the Government servant died in the year 1995. Admittedly no effort was made by the widow for her appointment under the “Dying in Harness Rules” for whatever reasons it might have been. No appointment could have been made at the relevant time as the petitioner was minor and was only six years of age. After a lapse of 15 years, such appointment cannot be made. This Court is totally in agreement with the reasons adopted by the concerned authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine as it has absolutely no merit. 3 6. The writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 17.11.2011 VKG