IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No. 226 of 2009 (S/S) Dharmendra Devi Paintola ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Present: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. The father of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher LT Grade in Government High School, Kalika, Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. He died in harness on 15.5.1999. The petitioner who was minor at that time subsequently applied on 22.7.2003 for appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as “Dying in Harness Rules”). The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 5.2.2008 on the ground that it is beyond the period of five years. Admittedly, the petitioner was not major at the time of death of his father inasmuch as he attained the majority only on 15.5.2004. This is the considered view of this Court that that appointments under Dying in Harness Rules are made so that the family of the deceased, which is facing immediate hardships, having lost the sole breadwinner of the family, be able to meet such a contingency. After five years of the death of the deceased, there is no material 2 on record to show that such a hardship still exists. Moreover, if there was an actual hardship, the mother of the petitioner should have applied at the relevant time. There is only a letter dated 18.9.2001 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) showing that the mother of the petitioner at the relevant time had made an application before the “Madhyamik Shiksha Nideshak” stating that her husband has died on 15.5.1999 and therefore appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules be given to her son when he attains the majority. There is nothing on record to show that the mother of the petitioner also applied. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 06.06.2011 Rathour