SUNIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that his father died in harness on 26/3/2000 while wording in the office of General Manager, Telcoom District Aligarh. The petitioner applied for appointment on Compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules and an equiry appears to have been conducted by the welfare Officer, office of the T.D.M. Aligarh. A report was submitted by him. The report was considered by The High Level Committee, which rejected the claim of the petitioner, interalla, on the ground that the handicap degree of the two two sonsdoes not make them incapacitate to work. Keeping in view the overall aspects of the liabilities and the fact that ail the sons are quite grown-up to support the family. The Committee did not find the family living on indigest condition. The application was rejected as it was not in accordance with COPT OM No. 14014/6/94-ESTT (D) dated 9/10/1998 the scheme for the purpose.

(3.) The petitioner claims that his brothers are and there is no other source of livelihood and as such the dependent of the deceased employee must be given appointment by the Respondents on compassionate ground. It has been found by the Committee that the family is not living in indigent condition which is a relevant consideration for offering appointment to the dependant of the deceased family who died in harness. It may be that the dependant may not be having independant source of income but the family still may not be in indigent condition.