ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the Petitioner was a government employee, who died in harness leaving the Petitioner who was then a minor aged about 4 years and his major wife. The major wife of the deceased employee thought that because her husband has died in harness, an appointment is automatic for her minor children under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. She thought that a legacy has been left by her deceased husband. In the writ petition, a mandamus was sought directing the Respondents to complete the appointment process of the Petitioner. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that after 13 years from the death of the government servant if the family could survive there was and is no just reason for giving a compassionate appointment.

(2.) In the appeal, Petitioner/Appellant is contending that Rule 5 of the said Rules authorizes condo nation of delay in case of extreme hardship. It was urged that the minority itself was such extreme hardship. As aforesaid, the deceased left his wife when he died in harness. In the event the family required the compassionate appointment for the survival of the family, the wife would have applied for and obtained such an appointment to save the family. She did not do so, as aforesaid proceeding on the basis that the father of the Appellant has left a legacy for him. In 1998, wife of the deceased pretended that she is not keeping well and, therefore, the appointment should be given to her son when he becomes major. The said state of affair clearly demonstrates that there was no just need for the compassionate appointment for even without the compassionate appointment, the head of the then family was aware that the family would survive.

(3.) The appeal is thoroughly misconceived and the same is dismissed. We have restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary costs in the matter.