RAJEEV JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is listed today for orders on the delay condonation application, which has been filed by the respondents in support of the counter affidavit. Reasons for delay has been sufficiently explained, same is condoned. The counter affidavit is taken on record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final disposal.

(2.) The short controversy which is being agitated by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that father of the petitioner was appointed as back as in the year 1981 as daily wager in Bakhada Range, Lamachaur Haldwani, District Nainital. He continued to work in the said capacity till he met with the sad demise on 6th April, 2009. After the death of the father, mother of the petitioner immediately moved a representation by way of an application on 18th June, 2009, before the respondent requesting that the petitioner who is dependent of the deceased Kailash Chandra Joshi may be granted appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). On the said representation of the mother of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 has written to the Principal Conservator Forest, Uttarakhand, Nainital, stating therein that the father of the petitioner who was appointed as daily wager on 1st November, 1981, had died on 6th April, 2009. The Forest Conservator, while making the recommendation has also observed that the family of the deceased Kailash Chandra Joshi is suffering financial crisis and, as such, he recommended that the petitioner may be appointed under the Rules. The said application for appointment under the compassionate ground as filed way back on 18th June, 2009 remained pending till 7th September, 2015. After considerable long period, when a decision was not taken, a reminder representation was moved by the petitioner reiterating the prayer that the claim for compassionate appointment may be considered and looking to the pathetic condition of the family of the petitioner, he may be considered for appointment under the harness rules.

(3.) The Conservator of Forest, Western Circle Nainital, vide its letter dated 21st July, 2015, yet again avoided to take any decision and the family condition of the petitioner further deteriorated, hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 2855 of 2017, wherein he prayed for mandamus by way of a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider his application for compassionate appointment in the light of the Rules.