IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) 490 of 2005 Manmohan Singh Bhandari …Petitioner Versus Director (Administration) Khadi and Village Industry Commission and others ….Respondents Present : Mr. S. K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S. K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s father was an employee in Village Industry Commission (from hereinafter referred to as Commission). The headquarter of the Commission is in Bombay. At that relevant time, petitioner’s father was working as a supervisor in district Chamoli under the said institution. He died while in harness in the year 1988. According to the petitioner, there is a scheme in force in Commission, whereby dependants of such employee who was working in Commission and died in harness can be given appointment. At the relevant time i.e. 1988, the petitioner was minor therefore he could not apply, yet his mother though applied on the said scheme was not given appointment as she was asked to get a succession certificate (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). Evidently, this succession certificate was sought as the deceased had two wives and the department wanted to ascertain as to the genuineness of the claim. Much later in the year 1997 the petitioner’s mother moved an application before respondent no. 1/Director (Administration), Khadi and 2 Village Industry Commission, that when the petitioner attains majority (which would be in the year 2001) he should be given appointment under the dying in harness rules. Consequently, thereafter the petitioner has been writing to Regional Office, Dehradun and the Regional Office has been reminding that his matter has been forwarded to the headquarter which is in Bombay but they have not answered. Letters, at least two of them have been shown before this Court, which are annexed as Annexures 7 and 10 to the writ petition. This has been the consistent view of the Court as is the law presently on the subject that compassionate appointment under dying in harness rules applicable in the State Government employees or in any such scheme applicable in an institution which is an instrumentality of the State, and these appointments are made so that the family which has lost its only breadwinner may be able to meet the immediate hardship. The purpose being to meet the immediate hardship, such appointments have to be made at the relevant time. In the present case, father of the petitioner died in the year 1988. At the relevant time, petitioner was minor. According to his own admission he attained majority in the year 2001. Therefore there was no possibility of any appointment being given to the petitioner. The claim of his mother and any other person that the petitioner would be given appointment when he attains majority is of little relevance as far as law is concerned. Therefore based on the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed, as these claims are highly belated. Having said this, however since the petitioner has shown to this Court certain letters of the respondents that under the scheme prevailing on the department even 3 a belated matter such as the present one can be considered, it is made clear that though no relief is being granted to the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such a remedy. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.08.2011 Kuldeep