2025:UHC:4175 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1623 of 2021 20 May, 2025 Vipin Negi ……….Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Chaudhary and Mr. Tarun Mohan, Brief Holders for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Father of the petitioner, who died in harness, was a class IV employee in the Medical Health, Family Welfare Department, Government of Uttarakhand. He died on 08.11.2011 leaving behind his wife and two sons including the petitioner. Since the petitioner was dependent upon his father, he immediately on 12.12.2011 after the death of his father moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Since no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner, he approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 912 of 2021, in which, this Hon’ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 directed the respondents to take a decision on the representation/application of the petitioner. 2. In pursuance to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, respondents have passed an order dated 1 2025:UHC:4175 15.09.2021, whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that this case is not covered under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In the order dated 15.09.2021, no reason has been assigned as to how the petitioner is not covered under the above said rules. 3. The reasons were disclosed in the counter- affidavit by the respondents, wherein they have stated that brother of the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army. Besides this, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s mother is getting Rs. 7,500/- as family pension. 4. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, reads as under: “[5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.—(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or Corporation 2 owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person— (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years 2 2025:UHC:4175 from the date of the death of the Government servant : Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.] [(3) Each appointment under sub-rule (1) should be under the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall upkeep those other family members of the deceased Government Servant who are incapable for their own maintenance and were dependent of the abovesaid deceased Government servant immediately before his death.” 5. Now the contention of the State is that since elder brother of the petitioner, is a Government employee, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules. This argument of the State Counsel is totally misconceived, inasmuch, as Rule 5 only states that such an appointment shall not be given in case the ‘spouse’ of the deceased is already employed in the Government service. It is not the case here that the spouse of the deceased was employed in Government service. One who is employed in the Government service is the son of the deceased, i.e. elder brother of the petitioner who is presently living separately and merely because one of the sons of the deceased is employed, it cannot be a ground of denying the employment to the petitioner. Moreover, what further goes in favour of the petitioner is that the elder son of the deceased is living separately and is not supporting the family (the one who is employed), as such, 3 2025:UHC:4175 the son of the deceased should be given an appointment on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules and the appointment of the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has applied within one month of death of his father claiming compassionate appointment. After that, 14 years has elapsed and due to erroneous approach of the respondents, the petitioner is still waiting for appointment. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2021, passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed. The Director, General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Dehradun is hereby directed to immediately give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, considering the qualification of the petitioner. (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.05.2025 Kaushal 4