IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 867 of 2004 (S/S) Brij Mohan S/o Late Jag Mohan R/o C/o Sri Dharm Das Opp. Railway Station Jawahar Nagar, Haldwani District Nainital … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary of Railway, New Delhi 2. Railway Divisional Manager (D.R.M.) Personnel Northern-Eastern Railway Izzat Nagar Bareilly, U.P. 3. Section Engineer (P.way) Northern Eastern Railways Lalkuan District Nainital … Respondents Sri B.S. Khanka, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Krishi Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this writ petition, a direction has been sought in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2004 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Sri Jag Mohan – father of the petitioner who was posted as a Gate Keeper at Gate No. 59A, Haldwani under Section Engineer, P.Way, Lalkuan, died on 01.12.2001 during his service. Mother of the petitioner already expired prior to the death of the petitioner’s father. The deceased left behind the petitioner and his younger sister as his two heirs. The petitioner’s sister was married subsequently. The petitioner has no means of livelihood hence he applied for the appointment under the compassionate ground on 11.06.2002. 2 The petitioner belongs to scheduled castes and he passed his class 8th in the year 1992. The petitioner was major at the time of his father death. The application of the petitioner was not considered by the D.R.M., Izzat Nagar, Bareilly who rejected the application vide order 07.06.2004. The petitioner thereafter sent further representation on 02.07.2004 for reconsidering his hardship but all in vain, hence the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The impugned order dated 07.06.2004 by which the application of the petitioner was rejected runs as follows:- “ iwoksZRrj jsyos dk;kZy; e.My jsy izcU/kd ¼dkfeZd½ i0l0dk@239@03&298@dEi@1 x @02 7@6@2004 Jh czteksgu Ikq= Lo0 t; eksgu nkjk Jh jke Hkjksls esB 17 oha jsyos dkyksuh gY}kuh ¼mRrjkapy½ fo"k;%& Jh czteksgu iq= Lo0 tx eksgu dh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dk ekeyk lanHkZ%& vkidk vkosnu fnukad 11@6@02 vuqdEik vk/kkj ij vkidh fu;qfDr ds vkosnu i= ij fopkjksijkar ;g ik;k fd firk ds fnukad 1@12@2001 dks fu/ku ds le; vkidh vk;q 22 o"kZ 07 ekg FkhA bl izdkj firk ds fu/ku ds le; vki O;Ld gks pqds Fks vkSj vkius 1992 esa gh d{kk vkB rd dh f’k{kk iwjh ckn yh FkhA vr% dksbZ vkfJr u gksus ds dkj.k vki dks vuqdEik ij fu;qfDr nsus dk vkSfpR; ugha curk gSA d`rs e.My jsy izcU/kd ¼dk0½ izfrfyid uksfVl cksMZ d`rs&e.My jsy izcU/kd ¼dk0½ bTtruxj 3 Perusal of the aforesaid rejection order reveals that the respondent No.2 has not taken into consideration the various principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of providing the appointment on compassionate ground. The reason, which has been assigned for rejection of the application, cannot be set to be justified in any manner. It appears to me that the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground in an arbitrary manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision cited in 1989 (4) SCC page 468 Sushma Gosain and others Vs. Union of India & others has observed as follows:- “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 years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision reported in 1991 supp (2) SCC page 689 Phoolwati (Smt.) Vs. Union of India & Others decided by three Hon’ble Judges Bench have again reiterated, the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier. It is thus quite clear that the objection underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who 4 may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post following a particular procedure. On the basis of the discussion made by me as above, I feel it just and proper to direct respondents to consider the petitioner claim for compassionate appointment and make appropriate decision on his representation to be made by him. The petition is allowed. The order dated 07.06.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate ground is set aside. The petitioner shall move a fresh representation before the respondents within a period of 15 days and the respondents No. 2 is directed to consider the representation to be moved by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of representation by passing speaking and reasoned order. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 20.06.2005 ASWAL