Rajendra Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another

V.K. Bist, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ, or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the Dying in Harness

Rules, 1974.

II. Issue a writ, or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of petitioner on compassionate appointment

under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, in the respondents department as per his qualification.â€​

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

The father of the petitioner was dully appointed on the sanctioned post of Seasonal Collection Amin vide appointment letter dated 1.10.1990. On

01.05.2012, father of the petitioner has died in harness. On 16.12.2011 and 19.12.2011 State Government issued Government order for regularization

of the Seasonal Collection Amins. On 6.08.2012, Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand wrote a letter to all the District Magistrates for regularizing

the services of the Seasonal Amins. The Secretary, State of Uttarakhand convened a meeting on 05.07.2012 in this regard. In the meeting it was

decided that due to delay in regularization, some of the Seasonal Collection Amins have died and their case may also be considered. Thereafter,

respondent no. 2 vide order dated 05.02.2013 regularized the services of the Seasonal Collection Amins and issued a list of persons whose services

have been regularized. Thereafter respondent no. 2 sought direction from Principal Secretary, Revenue vide letter dated 06.02.2013 regarding the

consideration of the case of the petitioner on the basis of petitioner’s representation dated 07.09.2012. In the letter it is also stated that two posts

are vacant in the department and if the Government considers it legal, the petitioner can be given appointment under dying in harness rules. Petitioner

made various representations before the authority concerned stating therein that he may be appointed under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; but till

today no action has been taken on the representations of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s case be considered under the Dying in Harness Rules. He prayed that writ petition

may be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file representation before respondents/ Authority competent and he may be directed to decide the

representation of the petitioner at the earliest.

Learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submitted that the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is innocuous and the

respondents/ Authority competent has no objection in case such direction is issued and the representation of the petitioner shall be decided in

accordance with law.

Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file

representation within a period of two weeks from today. In case, such representation is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the

respondents/ Authority competent shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date

of filing of such representation.

No order as to costs.