IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1925 of 2005 (S/S) 1. Smt. Govindi Devi W/O Late Kedar Datt Joshi, Ex-Mate (O.T.P.) M.E.S. No. 47004, Garrison Engineer (M.E.S.) Pithoragarh, Village Jakh, PO-Puran, Tehsil & Distt- Pithoragarh (Uttarakhand). 2. Neeraj Kumar S/O Late Sri Kedar Dutt Joshi. …… Petitioners. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Defence South Block, New Delhi-11. 2. Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, D.H.Q. P.O.- New Delhi-11. 3. Chief Engineer, H.Q. central Command, Lucknow-02, UP. 4. The Chief Engineer, Bareilly Zone, Sarvatra Bawan, Station Road, Bareilly Cantt.-243001. 5. The Commander Works Engineer (Hills), Mall Road, Dehradun Cantt. 6. The Commander Works (Hills), M.E.S. Pithoragarh. 7. Garrison Engineer, M.E.S., Pithoragarh. … Respondents. Mr. Gopal Datt Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (UOI), learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 06, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- 1. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Board of Officers (BOO) with its entire findings and issuance of HQ CE Bareilly Zone Letter No. 815502/RR/611/E1C(2)dated 28-4-2003 addressed to Neeraj Kumar S/O Late Shri Kedar Datt Joshi, the late husband of the petitioner (as amended as per Court Order dt. 22-6-2007) and Respondent No.-6 letter No. 11083/KDJ/07/E1C(2) dt. 23 October, 2001 and direction as per court order dt. 9.4.10 in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of 2 the Petitioner’s elder son Neeraj Kumar under the then prevalent provisions for compassionate appointment of the said dependant against the death of his father in harness, at the earliest. 2. To pass such further or other reliefs to the petitioner as the Court considers for ends of justice. 3. To allow this Writ Petition and award the cost of it in favour of the petitioner. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that father of petitioner no. 2 and husband of petitioner no.1, late Kedar Datt Joshi was working as Mate (O.T.E.) under Garrison Engineer in the M.E.S. Pithogarh kand he died in harness on 13-6- 1997. It appears that the petitioner no. 2 filed application for an appointment on compassionate ground under the relevant government orders. Lateron, the petitioner no. 2 was informed that his case was not found suitable by the Board of Officer for appointment on compassionate ground. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have wrongly calculated the income of the petitioners and instead of Rs. 1735/- per month, the same was taken to be Rs.2285/- per month. The writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the respondent-authorities has wrongly calculated the income of the widow of the deceased as Rs. 2285/- per month, while her income in fact was Rs. 1685/- per month besides Rs. 600/- per annum from other sources. According to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 600/- per annum was wrongly calculated to be Rs. 600/- per month and thereby adding the same, the income was held to be Rs. 1685/- p.m. pension plus Rs. 600/-= Rs. 2285/- per month and it was wrongly held that the income exceeded amount of Rs. 1767/-. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph nos. 7 and 8 following averments have been made:- “7. That it is also pertinent to mention that Planning Commission has brought out that the poverty line amounts to 3 income below Rs. 1767/- per month for a family of five members. Hence, this yardstick has to be applied to decide whether or not the case really deserves one. 8. That in the instant case it is mentioned that an amount of Rs. 234660.00 was paid to the Petitioner as terminal benefits and she is also in receipt of the family pension of Rs. 3059/- per month. Thus, the family had enough means to survive and the facts that the family of the deceased Government Servant deserve immediate assistant for relief from financial destitution could not be established. Apart from this there was non availability of vacancy within the ceiling of 5% falling under direct recruitment quota in Group-C or Group-D post within a year.” The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. IN reply of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit the following averments have been made:- “5. The contents of para 7 of CA are not admitted hence denied to the extent as already stated in para 4 of above and also no such poverty line fixing income below Rs. 1767/- per month for a family of five members as laid down in the then Rules as per Annexure R-1 above. Even if, in the way the revised process for compassionate appointment has been worked out, the Petitioner’s monthly income could be worked out as monthly pension Rs. 1685/- p.m. & Rs 50/- p.m. and not Rs. 2285/- p.m. which wrongly included Rs. 600/- p.a. to knowingly inflating her monthly income to bring her outside the eligibility as far as the prescribed yardstick of poverty line of Rs. 1767/- p.m. fixed by the Respondents, are concerned.” In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30-6-2010 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others. Learned counsel has prayed that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 30-6-2010. 4 On the other hand, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondents has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost identical to the controversy involved in Writ Petition No. 107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others. I have perused the order dated 30-6-2010 passed by this Court Writ Petition No. 107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost similar to that of the Writ Petition No. 107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others. In the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed in terms of the order dated 30- 6-2010. The writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order dated 30-6-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari Vs. Union of India and others. A mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on merit on the basis of the scheme, which was in existence at the time of the death of Mr. Kedar Datt Joshi, deceased government servant, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP