HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 565(S/S)06: 1. Harish Singh Kunwar S/o late Sri Khushal Singh, 2. Smt. Manju Devi W/o late Sri Khushal Singh, Both R/o village Khet Patti Khet, Tehsil Dharchula, Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal. ---- Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Uttaranchal through, Education Secretary, Dehradun. 2. The Director of Education, Uttaranchal, Camp Office-02, Subhash Road, Dehradun, 3. The Joint Director of Education, Uttaranchal, Nainital. 4. District Basic Education Officer, Pithoragarh. ----Respondents. Sri A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal/respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri A.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttaranchal/ respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and give appointment to her/son as the application was filed within time on dated 20.12.1996, 08.06.1997, 17.07.1998 and 13.08.2004 by them respectively. In 2 such stage of circumstances there was no delay in moving application by the petitioner, under the Rules. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the petition. 3. It is contended that the father of petitioner no.1 died on 27.04.1992 while in active service as Head Master Poorva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Shyankuri, Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh leaving behind his widow and two sons. The widow of the deceased made a representation to the respondents in the year 1992 itself, for providing her appointment in the Department under dying-in-harness Rules, however no action was taken by the Department. On 17.07.1998, the petitioner no. 1, who is elder son of the deceased Khushal Singh, made an application to the respondents for providing him appointment under dying-in-harness Rules. The said application is annexed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. On which the District Basic Education Officer, Pithoragarh vide letter dated 30th August 2001 asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit referring therein that no one else has been given appointment under dying-in-harness Rules in the family. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter dated 30th August 2001, the petitioner has already submitted an affidavit on 07.09.2001. More than five years have been passed but the respondents have not paid any heed towards it and have yet not provided appointment to the petitioner. 4. During the course of the arguments, counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer that the respondents be directed to take decision on the application of the petitioner 3 dated 17.07.1998 which is annexed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. 5. Thus, without entering into the merits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent no. 4 to take decision on the application of the petitioner within the period prescribed by the Court. 6. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 is directed to take decision on the application of the petitioner dated 17.07.1998 (annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) April 26, 2006: NCM: