HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 524 of 2011 (S/S) Pramod Bargali. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Dated: June 24, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring non-consideration of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment by the respondents despite provision for compassionate appointment in the Service Regulations, as arbitrary and illegal. B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders under Regulation 77 of Service Regulations, 1981 in the light of extreme hardship faced by the petitioner and other family members. C. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to 2 forthwith grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner without any further delay in view of acute financial crisis faced by the petitioner and other family members in the absence of any source of livelihood. D. To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. E. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Kishan Singh Bargali, was a permanent employee of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and was posted as Senior Clerk in Corporation’s Workshop at Kathgodam under the control of respondent no.3. On 01.11.2003, petitioner’s father died while he was on duty. Faced with the extreme financial hardship, petitioner immediately submitted an application dated 17.11.2003 before respondent no.3. When no heed paid towards his application, the petitioner further submitted many other applications to the Managing Director of the Corporation. On 01.11.2007 the respondent no.1 issued a letter mentioning therein that the Board of Directors of the Corporation is competent to take decision in the matter of compassionate appointment and State Govt. has nothing to do with the matter. It is averred that when no decision was taken to the application, the petitioner compelled to move representation dated 22.04.2010, 08.11.2010, 14.01.2011 and 18.02.2011 to the respondents, however no decision was taken in the matter. It is further asserted in the petition that petitioner’s father died in harness on 3 01.11.2003 leaving behind the widow, petitioner, one younger brother and sister. Since, there was no source of income available to the family, therefore, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 17.11.2003. 4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to consider and take final decision on the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness Rules within a specific period, prescribed by the Court. Prayer being innocuous, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation does not raise objection if such directions are issued to the competent authority. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to consider and take final decision on the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness Rules within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. Misc. application (CLMA No. 5396 of 2011) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 24.06.2011 NCM: