COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 645/2004 Chandra Shekhar Pant …….Petitioner Versus Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Special Service Bureau, New Delhi and Others ……Respondents Sri Deep Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vikas Pande, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 27th June, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules. 2. Father of the petitioner late Sri Nitya Nand Pant was a Head Constable, who died in harness on 16.12.1999. After the death of his father, petitioner submitted his application in requisite form for his compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. After the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 sent a memorandum dated 21.1.2004, whereby petitioner was asked to furnish necessary information in a prescribed proforma. On fulfilling the necessary requirements by the petitioner, he was issued a call letter by the respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner was required to appear in the physical 2 efficiency test/interview for the post of CT(GD)/Follower. But the petitioner was declared disqualified after physical efficiency test/interview and was denied the appointment on compassionate ground. 3. Petition is of the year 2004, but even after affording several opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. The application of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Undisputedly, the request for compassionate appointment was made in time. Respondents took much time in considering the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which frustrates the very purpose of compassionate 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 cases pending for years. It is well settled and it does not need restatement at my end that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is ready to work with the respondent department on any post. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that posts of Class III and Class IV having civilian work are available in the establishment of respondent department and the petitioner can be provided appointment on any of these posts where the requisite physical standard, fixed for selection of the Constables, is not applicable. 3 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground on any post according to his qualification and fitness within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if the post is available. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 27.6.2008 Prabodh