Court No.2 Cou IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 243 of 2004 Rahul Baghel ........ Petitioner Versus Executive Director (P.A.) National Hydro Power Corporation, Office Complex, Sector 33, Faridabad, Haryana. ...... Respondents. .............. Sri M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Class III post in the Dhauliganga Hydroelectric Project, Dharchulla, Pithoragarh (National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.) on the basis of the Dying in Harness Rules and further to quash the order dated 05.11.2003 passed by respondent No.3 by which the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The petitioner’s father late S.C. Baghel was working as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the office of Dhauli Ganga Pariyojna, Dharchulla, Pithoragarh. On 05.12.1998 the petitioner’s father died in a road accident while he was in service in Dhauliganga Hydroelectric Project, Dharchulla, Pithoragarh. At the time of death of his father the petitioner was minor and he attained his majority in August 2001. The petitioner has moved a representation on 18.09.2003 for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The Senior Manager (Personnel) –HR-1, Faridabad/respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 05.11.2003 rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2003 and informed him that his father late Sri S.C. Baghel was covered under Group Accident Insurance Scheme of the Company, hence the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. 3. It is contended by the respondents that Smt. Anubha Baghel, mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 30.12.1998 under the Dying in Harness Rules and her application was also rejected on 13.06.2000. It is also contended that under the Group Personal Accident Insurance policy an amount of Rs. 5,22,200/- was paid to the family of the deceased late Sri S.C. Baghel and the petitioner’s case is not covered under the Scheme and the Guidelines for compassionate appointment. 4. It is admitted to the respondents that the father of the petitioner died during service. It is also admitted that the Chairman cum Managing Director has to consider the recommendation made by the Committee and pass appropriate orders for appointment in deserving cases after looking into various factors. The object of the Rules to give the compassionate appointment 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. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 05.11.2003 rejecting the representation of the petitioner is set aside and it is provided that the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment shall be considered afresh ignoring the fact that some substantial amount has been paid to the family after the death of the deceased employee. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (P.C. Verma, J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh