IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 467 (SS) OF 2005 Mandip Kumar, S/o late Manoj Kumar, R/o Village Bhoor, Maholiya (Nahar Ke Pas), P.O. Khatima, District- Udham Singh Nagar. ……………Petitioner. Versus 1. Bank of Baroda, through its Chairman / Managing Director Central Office, Mandvi Baroda, Gujarat 2. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttaranchal. 3. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal. …………. Respondents. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 03.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sweeper or as Class IV employee on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 adopted by the Uttaranchal in the branch of Bank of Baroda within the region. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was appointed in the Bank of Baroda, Branch Khatima as part time sweeper. For 1st six months he was on probation, thereafter, the service of the deceased was confirmed in the aforesaid Bank. 2 3. On 22.07.1993, the father of the petitioner died during the service period. Thereafter, Smt. Gaura Devi (mother of the petitioner) was appointed as Sweeper in the aforesaid Bank, Branch at Khatima on compassionate ground. 4. After rendering approximately four years’ service in the department, the mother of the petitioner also died during the service period on 10.03.1997. 5. The deceased late Manoj Kumar and Smt. Gaura Devi left behind three children, who were minor at the time of their death. 6. It has been submitted that the Grand Mother of the petitioner is living separately and she is also posted as Class IV employee in the Red Cross Hospital at Balkuwakote, District Pithoragarh after the death of Manoj Kumar and his wife Gaur Devi, Smt. Naurti Devi Grand Mother of children wrote several letters to the respondents authority for grant, for all the benefits which was payable to the dependents due to the death of his parents during service period. 7. Petitioner has submitted that he is elder son of the deceased and he was also minor at the time of the death of her mother, inspite of that his Grand Mother, who is the lawful guardian of the petitioner applied on behalf of petitioner for compassionate appointment within time under the scheme of Recruitment of/Financial Relief to the dependents of the Deceased Employees on compassionate grounds on 07.07.2001. In this respect, the respondent Bank wrote a letter to his lawful guardian Smt. Naurti Devi that we have summoned all the relevant records form our Annchal and as and when we receive the answer, you will be informed accordingly. 8. On 04.09.2001, the respondent Bank informed Naurti Devi (grand mother of the petitioner) that no one of children 3 of late Mrs. Gaura Devi is eligible for the recruitment under the scheme of Recruitment of dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate ground of our Bank. 9. The legal guardian of the petitioner made several representations on 10.12.2003, 16.03.2004 and 05.07.2004 to the respondent authority from time to time for appointment of her Grand son on the post of Sweeper/Class IV employees. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a scheme of Bank for recruitment of / financial relief to the dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds and the petitioner is also entitled for the appointment in the Bank services under this scheme and in fact the petitioner and his legal guardian had been applying for compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Scheme within time. The petitioner has further submitted the he belongs to a scheduled caste category i.e. called Balmiki. 11. Petitioner has further submitted that after the death of his guardian i.e. the bread-earner of the family, the whole family is going under the tremendous financial hardship 12. The Apex Court in the case of Sushma Gosain Vs. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468 has observed as under:- “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.” 4 13. 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 (1998) 4 SCC 468. The relevant observations are quoted below:- “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.” “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.” 14. 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 anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. 5 Thus compassionate appointment is treated to alleviate the distress of the family. 15. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to decide the representation (filed on 10.12.2003, 16.03.2004 and 05.07.2004) of the petitioner by passing appropriate order taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. 16. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 03.03.2006 Rathour