IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 92 (S/S) of 2008 Yudhisthir S/o Late Shri Gyan Chand Verma R/o Village Manakpur Adampur Pargana-Bhagwanpur Tehsil-Roorkee District Haridwar. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries, Dehradun. 2. Sugar and Cane Commissioner Uttarakhand, at Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Joint Cane Commissioner Haridwar, District Haridwar. 4. Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Iqbalpur (Roorkee) District-Haridwar through its Secretary. .……….Respondents. Shri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1,2 and 3. Shri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father Gyan Chand Verma, was Samayik Lipik (Seasonal Clerk) at Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Iqbalpur (Roorkee). He died on 18.10.2007, during his service period. The petitioner moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground, after death 2 of his father, to which mother and two brothers of the petitioner made no objection, as the family was dependent on the deceased employee. Petitioner’s case is that he is a Graduate and eligible for appointment on a suitable post in the office of respondent No. 4. It is further alleged in the writ petition that petitioner has been wrongly denied the appointment on compassionate ground. Annexure-3 is copy of letter dated 15.01.2008, issued by respondent No. 4, shows that the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground, was refused on the ground that letter No. 1013(7) (C.D.)/46/2000/15 (25)/96, dated 26.05.2000, issued by Cane Commissioner, for the reason that U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying and Harness Rules, 1974, are not applicable to the present case. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in which it is admitted that Gyan Chand Verma, father of the petitioner-Yudhisthir, was Seasonal Clerk with Cooperative Cane Development Society. It is further admitted that he died on 18.10.2007, during the period of his service. However, it is stated that the job held by the petitioner’s father was a seasonal one and U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying and Harness Rules, 1974, are not applicable to the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to judgment and order dated 27.02.2006, passed in writ petition No. 223 of 2006 (S/S) and also 3 to the writ petition No. 1269 (S/S) of 2007, decided by this Court on 02.11.2007. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in compliance of order dated 27.02.2006, passed in writ petition No. 223 (S/S) of 2006, petitioner of said case –Sunil Kumar has been provided job and the petitioner’s case is similar to said petitioner. He further contended that Basant Kumar, petitioner of writ petition No. 1269 (S/S) of 2007, has also the similar case to that of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the parties, agree that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the petitioner to make fresh representation for redressal of his grievances to respondent No. 4-Society, who may consider the same. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner shall make a representation within a period of fifteen days from today for redressal of his grievances to the Respondent No. 4, and the concerned authority shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the authority concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 01.05.2008 Sweta 4