IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL W.P. No. 1712 of 2002 (S/B) Manjeet Singh Negi ………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & another ……….. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, A.C.J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Petitioner is the son of Late Veer Vikram Singh Negi, who has expired on 29.03.2001. After the death of Late Veer Vikram Singh Negi, his wife moved an application on 24.04.2001 before respondent No. 2 mentioning that under Dying in Harness Rules her son i.e. the petitioner be given the job. Petitioner has also moved an application on 15.10.2002 before respondent No. 2 in this regard. But the respondent No. 2 is delaying the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. From the perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that 225 persons have been appointed ignoring the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that these persons have not been appointed directly, they have been appointed as daily wagers and they were regularised. Since, 225 persons have been appointed, but of this, one post could have been given to the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. But the petitioner has been treated unfairly. Therefore, I direct the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner shall be appointed under Dying in Harness Rules within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Any ban put by the State Government for appointment, shall not come in the way of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, A.C.J.) Dt. 28.06.2004 G