(1.) BOTH the parties have submitted that in view of paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, where it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner had not yet been closed and not rejected finally and therefore, both the parties have agreed that let the writ petition be decided finally directing the respondents to finalize the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground expeditiously.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the husband of the petitioner namely late Sri Sohan Lal Joshi was posted as Postal Assistant under the respondent No. 3 in Head Post Office Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. According to the petitioner, Sri Sohan Lal Joshi was a confirmed employee of the respondents and put in a continuous service of nearly 26 years. He died on 23rd February, 2001 at about 6.30 a.m. in District Hospital, Gopeshwar while he was still in service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased has left three daughters and three sons and as such she has lost bread-earner in the family and in order to tide the difficulties and misfortune, which has fallen suddenly, the petitioner submitted her application for giving her compassionate appointment in place of her husband alongwith all the requisite papers in the month of July, 2001. The application of the petitioner was duly forwarded and on 27th January, 2004, it was informed by the respondent No. 2 that her application had been rejected. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order and simultaneously he has also prayed for a mandamus, commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground with the respondents-department under the Dying in Harness Rules.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the record, it appears that according to the own case of the respondents, the matter of appointment on compassionate ground is still pending with the respondents. In Smt. Sushma Gosai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 (59) FLR 626 (SC), the Apex Court has observed that the cases related to the compassionate appointment have to be disposed of speedily. Observations of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosai (supra) are as under: