AMIT PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father, who was an employee in Education Department, died while in service. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. His application for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground that his elder brother is employed in Bank of Baroda. Petitioner has challenged the said rejection order in this writ petition.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's elder brother, who is employed in Bank of Baroda, has been living separately with his family since before death of petitioner's father. Therefore, petitioner's request for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the ground that his elder brother is employed. Learned Counsel further submits that the case is governed by Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. He relied upon Rule 5 of the said rules which is extracted below: