IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 281 (SS) OF 2004 Shakuntala D/o late Chandra R/o Village Ashadale Compound Sukhatal, Nainital District- Nainital ..........Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Urban Development, Dehradun. 2. The Director, Local Bodies, Dehradun. 3. Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, District Nainital 4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, District Nainital. ............Respondents. Ms. B.S. Khanka, Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated : 28.03.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give appointment in place of her mother. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to pay the arrears of dues of her mother to the petitioner. Briefly stated, the mother of the petitioner Smt. Chandra Devi died on 10.8.1999 in harness, who was working in the B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital. She left behind two daughters, petitioner is one of them, who were living with her mother and fully dependent upon her. After the death of her mother, the petitioner sent a representation to the President Nagar Palika, Nainital on 28.11.2001 requesting for payment of arrears of fund, gratuity, insurance and encashment and the respondents directed the E.O. Nagar Palika for clearance of dues of the petitioner. When the petitioner didn’t clear the dues of the petitioner, she again made a representation on 21.07.2003 for employment in place of her mother. Petitioner has submitted that she has no other source of livelihood and she has come on the verge of starvation and is facing financial crisis. A counter affidavit has been filed, where the respondents have filed a copy of the order dated 27th April, 2004 by which the claim for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules has been cancelled on the basis of the G.O. dated 31st August, 2002. It may be appointed out that the G.O. dated 31st August, 2002 has already been withdrawn on 31st October, 2002. Both the orders are quoted below:- G.O. dated 31st August, 2002:- 5. e`rd dqVqEc ds fdlh lnL; dh HkrhZ%& ¼1½ ;fn bl fu;ekoyh ds izkjHHk gksus ds i'pkr fdlh ljdkjh lsod dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tk;s rks mlds dqVqEc ds ,sls ,d lnmL; dks tks] dsUnªh; ljdkj ;k jkT; ds vFkok dsUnªh; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRok/khu ;k mlds }kjk fu;af=r fdlh fuxe ds v/khu igys ls lsok;ksftr u gks] bl iz;kstu ds fy, vkosnu djus ij HkrhZ ds lkekU; fu;eksa dks f’kfFky djrs gq,] ljdkjh lsok esa ,sls in dk NksM+dj] tks mRrjakpy yksd lsok vk;ksx ds {ks=kUrxZr gks fdlh in ij mi;qDr lsok;kstu iznku fd;k tk;sxk] ;fn ,slk O;fDr%& ¼,d½ in ds fy, fofgr 'kSf{kd vgZrk,a iwjh djrk gks% ¼nks½ ljdkjh lsok ds fy, vU;Fkk vgZ gks% vkSj ¼rhu½ ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q ds fnukad ls ikWap o"kZ ds Hkhrj lsok;kstu ds fy, vkosnu djrk gS% ijUrq tgkWa jkT; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks tk;s fd lsok;kstu ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, fu;e le; lhek ls fdlh fof’k"V ekeys esa vuqfpr dfBukbZ gksrh gS] ogkW og vis{kkvksa dks] ftUgsa og ekeys esa U;k; laxr vkSj lkE;iw.kZ jhfr ls dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, vko’;d le>s] vfHkeqDr ;k f’kfFky dj ldrh gSA ¼2½ ,slk lsok;kstu] ;FkklaHko] mlh foHkkx esa fn;k tkuk pkfg, ftlesa e`r ljdkjh lsod viuh e`R;q ds iwoZ lsok;ksftr FkkA ¼3½ ^mifu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu dh xbZ izR;sd fu;qfDr] bl 'krZ ds v/khu gksxh fd mifu;e ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;qDr O;fDr] e`rd ljdkjh lsod ds ifjokj ds vU; lnL;ksa dk vuqj{k.k djsxk tks fd Lo;a dk vuqj{k.k djus esa vleFkZ gS vkSj mDr e`rd ljdkjh lsod ij mldh e`R;q ds Bhd iwoZ vkfJr FksA^^ G.O. dated 31st October, 2002:- vf/klwpuk la[;k 849@dk &2&2002] fnukad 23 vxLr 2002 }kjk mRrj izns’k lsokdky esa e`rd ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ lsok fu;ekoyh 1974 dk vuqdwyu ,oa mikUrj.k fd;k x;k gSA mDr vuqdwyu ,o mikUrj.k vkns’k tkjh djus ds lkFk gh =qfVo’k vf/klwpuk la[;k 194@dk&2&2002] fnukad 31 vxLr] 2002 }kjk mRrjkapy lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 2002 tkjh gks x;h gSA pwWfd vf/klwpuk la[;k 849@dk&2&2002] fnuakd 23 vxLr 2002 }kjk mRrj izns’k lsokdky esa e`rd ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ lsok fu;ekoyh 1974 dk vuqdwyu fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% vf/klwpuk la[;k 194@dk&2&2002 fnukad 31 vxLr 2002 }kjk tkjh mRrjkapy lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 2002 dks ,rn~}kjk fu;ekoyh ds iz[;kiu dh frfFk vFkkZr fnukad 31&8&2002 ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g le>k tk;sxk fd tSls mDr fu;ekoyh iz[;kfir gh ugha gqbZ FkhA^^ In the view of the aforesaid fact, writ petition is allowed. The matter is sent back of the respondent, who shall reconsider the same within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order in accordance with law and shall release the amount due towards the petitioner. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 28.03.2006 Rathour