Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/S) No.827 of 2003 Jagdish ……. Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Telecommunication Government of India 103,Sanchar Bhawan, Ashok Road, New Delhi and others. ……. Respondents …………………… Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt.Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government on behalf of respondents. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as sweeper with the respondents under Dying in Harness Rules and to appoint him as Sweeper in place of his father late Ishai (R.M.) who died during service. 2. The father of the petitioner late Ishari was working in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Chamoli at Gopeshwar/respondent No.4 as sweeper (R.M.). He was regular and confirmed employee of the respondents. He died on 15.02.2000 during service in harness. The petitioner applied for employment as Sweeper in place of his father in accordance with the 2 Government Orders and instructions issued by the Union Government for the purpose of giving appointments under Dying in Harness Rules. The respondent No.3 has engaged the petitioner on part time basis as sweeper on a fixed amount of Rs. 250/- per month and assured him appointment under Dying in Harness Rules but so far he has not given regular appointment. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the work and post is still available in the office of respondent No.4 and as such apart from giving part time engagement to the petitioner, he can easily be accommodated as a regular sweeper in the department. 3. The respondents contended that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is done by a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief General Manager. The appointment is solely based upon the vacancy available at the time of consideration of the case. As per the office memorandum of the Central Government, the compassionate appointment should not be more than 5% of the available vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota. It is also contended that the case of the petitioner for Compassionate Appointment was taken in the High Power Committee meeting held on 16.01.2001 but the Committee did not find the case of the petitioner fit for employment under the compassionate ground quota. 4. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner died on 15.02.2000 in harness. The mother of the petitioner gave her consent for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is also admitted to the respondents that the petitioner was engaged as part time 3 sweeper and he is being paid Rs. 250/- per month. It shows that the work is available in the department. The object of the Dying in Harness Rules is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Although the petitioner has been engaged on part time basis in the department but he is not being paid even pay of minimum pay scale. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the petitioner may be considered for regular appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules as and when the vacancy is available. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be paid minimum of pay scale. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (P.C.Verma,J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh 4