IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 106 (M/B) 2003 Brij Mohan Uniyal, S/o late Shri Manglanand Uniyal, R/o 68 Dangwal Marg Dehradun. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, Chief Secretary. 2. District Judge, Dehradun ……………Respondents. Mr. K.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri R. Dobhal, Advocate for the respondents. Dated : 28.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.10.2002 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure 6 to the writ Petition) by which the representation of the petitioner for employment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that Sri Manglanand Uniyal father of the petitioner died on 21.12.1996. He was working as a Class-IV employee as a Water- man under the supervision and control in the judgeship of district Dehradun. Since Sri Manglanand Uniyal had no issue at all, therefore, he adopted the petitioner under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act on 13.07.1988 and the proceedings of the adoption deed were registered in the Registrar Office, Dehradun. During his life time, late Sri Manglanand Uiyal father f the petitioner nominated the petitioner as his nominee after his death in the office record of District Judge Dehradun and a 2 certificate was issued by the District Judge, which is quoted below:- “izdkf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Lo0 Jh eaxykuan ¼okVjeSu½ iq= Lo0 Jh jkes”ojnRr ds lsok vfHkys[kkuqlkj Lo0 Jh eaxykuan }kjk Jh c`teksgu vfu;ky iq= Jh lR;izdk”k 68 Mxoky ekxZ pqD[kqokyk Vh bu dks viuk ukfer (Nominee) fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSa ukSfeus” ku QkeZ dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA” Petitioner has also referred the certificate issued by the District Judge under the Indian Succession Act, by which the petitioner was appointed by the order of the Civil Judge. However, the District Judge has refused to give the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on the ground that the claim of the petitioner as adopted son of late Sri Manglanand was not found correct under the provisions as contained in Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act. No counter affidavit has been filed inspite of the orders passed by this Court on various occasions. On 11.05.2005, following order was passed:- “By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.10.2002 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), by which the representation of the petitioner for employment under Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected. A perusal of the order dated 26th October, 2002 shows that earlier the application was filed on 24.10.2002 by the petitioner was rejected in the year, 1997. Either of the parries have not produced the order of rejection. The petitioner is provided an opportunity of filing the same within a period of two weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. Sri Sharad Sharma, who is an Advocate of the High Court is also present today. He is directed to produce the 3 record of the case before the District Judge concerning the petitioner. Put up for final hearing on 8th June, 2005.” But neither the record has been produced not the counter affidavit has yet been filed. However, since the question of adoption is a matter of record and the District Judge can very well verify the same from his own record with regard to the granting of the certificate in favour of the petitioner under the Hindu Succession Act as well as Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In view of the aforesaid position, the District Judge can verify the fact of granting certificate under the Hindu Succession Act as well as Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act from his own record. The Apex Court in the case of SushimaGosain Vs. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468 is concerned, the relevant observations are quoted below:- “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 year. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 has relied upon the judgment of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468. The relevant observations are quoted below:- 4 “The whole object of granting compassionate employment in thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to; be offered to the eligible member of the family.” Therefore, as will appear from the aforesaid judgment that the object of the grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is to help the deceased family from starvation and not to make a selection. In the same judgment it has also been observed as under:- “It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” It is well settled that appointment on the compassionate ground is purely humanitarian consideration because of the fact that family will not be able to make both ends meet. The purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a Government servant dying-in-harness in preference to any body else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. Thus 5 compassionate appointment is treated to alleviate the distress of the family. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order on the applications filed by the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules from time to time. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 28.02.2006 Rathour