HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.198 of 2010 Union of India & others …Appellants Versus Smt. Vidyotama Thapliyal ...Respondent Mr. Vikas Pande, the learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/appellants. Mr. Atul Bahuguna, the learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: 30.09.2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Mr. Vikas Pande, the learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/Appellant and Mr. Atul Bahuguna, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Delay in filing the affidavit is condoned. Delay condonation application no.8377 of 2010 is allowed. 3. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.08.2010 disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds on a post suitable to her qualifications. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the husband of the respondent/petitioner was working as a Branch Post Master in a remote village in Uttarakhand and died in harness on 11.08.2001 leaving behind his mother, his wife i.e. the petitioner, two minor daughters and a minor son. 2 Since there was a financial crunch in the family, and the bread earner had died, the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Her application was rejected by an order dated 07.03.2003 against which she preferred an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 03.03.2004 and consequently, a writ petition was filed which was allowed by a judgment dated 13.08.2010. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the impugned orders was cryptic in nature and did not disclose any reason and that the reasons given in the counter affidavit was such which was not worth considering and, accordingly issued a positive mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground on a post which was suitable to her qualification. The respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has filed the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. 5. The contention of the appellants that the deceased had embezzled a sum of ` 850/- on account of which he was placed under suspension by an order of 20.07.2001 and that pursuant to the suspension order, the deceased had also deposited the sum of ` 850/- but before any final orders could be passed and before any disciplinary proceedings could be initiated, the deceased had died on 11.08.2001. The learned counsel submitted that on account of the fraud being played by the deceased, the family of the deceased 3 became disentitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the Court finds that submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is bereft of merit. Admittedly, no loss was incurred by the department since the deceased had deposited the alleged amount. Only an allegation of fraud was levelled against the deceased. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated nor any finding was arrived at. Further in the absence of a finding of guilt against the deceased, on mere allegation, the family of the deceased could not be deprived of an appointment on compassionate grounds. Further this Court finds that such allegations are lacking in the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the writ court. 7. Admittedly, the deceased was working on a substantive post and died in harness. The appellants have Rules relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds. The family of the deceased was entitled to invoke the provisions relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the respondents passed a cryptic order without specifying any reasons and rejected the application for appointment on compassionate grounds and considering the fact that the deceased had died in the year 2001 and nine long years had elapsed, the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing a mandamus to the respondents, namely, to give an appointment on compassionate grounds to the 4 writ petitioner instead of remitting the matter afresh for reconsideration. This Court is of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law. The appeal fails and is dismissed summarily. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 30.09.2010 Arti 5