AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 212 wordsSudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri Amish Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.
The Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed that he should be appointed on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as the Dying in Harness Rules), as the father of the Petitioner who was in the services of the Uttarakhand Medical Services and was working as a Health Supervisor died while in harness on 6.8.2006. The Petitioner applied for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, however, the Respondents rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground inasmuch as the appointment can only be given to a person who does not have any other family member such as his mother or brother working in a Government department. Admittedly, the mother of the Petitioner is already working as a Government employee. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules.
Writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.