Uttarakhand High Court
Kanti Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 927 of 2021
Kanti Devi .......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following
reliefs:-
"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent No.3 to give consent for
compassionate appointment to the petitioner under Dying
in Harness Rules in light of the board resolution of
respondent no.2 dated 16.05.2013 (contained as
Annexure No.9 to this writ petition)
II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider the claim of
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground
being the divorced dependent daughter of the deceased
Government servant against any appropriate vacant posts
in the concerned department."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has come
up with a case that her mother has met with the sad demise as back as
on 02.01.2012, and as a consequence thereto, since she was a divorced
widow daughter, she would be entitled to be considered for an
appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and hence she
has raised a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on
28.06.2013 by way of filing an application, before the competent
authority.
3. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the application thus submitted by the petitioner, on
28.06.2013, had been processed, and the Board has already passed the
resolution, as back as on 16.05.2013, recommending for the grant of
approval, of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is ever
since, the said date of death i.e. 02.01.2012 or ever since passing of
the resolution of the board dated 16.05.2013, the petitioner has never
agitated her claim before any competent judicial forum with a
reasonable time, as it was except by way of filing of the
representation, as it has been pleaded in the writ petition.
4. The very purpose of Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974, where the maximum tenor of period during, which the
applicant could apply has been provided under Rule 5 of the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974, which could be extendable by the State for the
reasons to be assigned by them to the maximum period of five years,
from the date of death, which is not a factual case herein. Because the
Board has already decided the matter on 16.05.2013, in favour of the
petitioner. If that be the situation, the issue of the petitioner's
entitlement stood resolved by the Board on 16.05.2013, and in that
eventuality, if the respondents were still not granting an approval to
the appointment of the petitioner, on compassionate grounds, she
ought to have approached the Court within an appropriate time.
5. Having filed the writ petition with a prayer, which is
extracted above, by approaching a writ court only on 27.07.2021. It
runs contrary to the very intention and purpose of the welfare
legislation provided under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which
intends to provide an immediate reprieve to the bereaved family,
whose only breadwinner has died.
6. The very fact that the petitioner has been able to sustain
herself, ever since 2012, and till the date of the filing of the writ
petition, that itself would disentitles her to be considered for
compassionate appointment, and that is what has been envisaged by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 564,
"Dhalla Ram Vs. Union of India and others" where it has been laid
down that a delayed claim or delayed enforcement of the claim for
compassionate appointment would be bad in the eyes of law, being
contrary to the very legislative intent of the Dying in Harness Rules,
1974.
7. Hence the writ petition for the aforesaid reasons lacks
merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.07.2021
NR/
