Anil Singh Bisht vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner under U.P. Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner namely Sri Bhim Singh Bisht was working as Vaccinator in the Primary Health Centre, Lamgara who died in harness on 30.5.1996. The deceased has left behind his widow, one unmarried daughter and the petitioner as his son. The petitioner has submitted that after the death of his father the family has no source of income and it is difficult for them to earn their livelihood. The petitioner has stated that his mother has made a representation on 17.8.1998 to the respondent No. 2 for payment of dues and also for appointment of the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules, but the respondents have not paid any heed to the request of the petitioner''s mother and his application for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules has not been considered at all.

The object behind the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is to provide immediate financial help to the family in distress. The legal preposition is well settled as held in the case of Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1998 SCC 468, as under:

"We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant."

The father of the petitioner died on 30.5.1996 and he has moved the application for compassionate appointment on 17.8.1998, the same having been filed well within time, the respondents should have considered the same.

The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, in the light of observations made in the body of judgment, within six weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.