2026:UHC:4225 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition No. 1602 of 2025 (SS) Rahul Tamta -- Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates: Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has challenged Office Memo dated 21.08.2025, issued by Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Uttarkashi. By the said order, petitioner’s stepmother was offered appointment on compassionate ground as ‘Peon’. 2. Petitioner contends that his father late Prem Lal Tamta who was an employee of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, married second time after death of petitioner's mother, on 10.01.2004; petitioner’s father thereafter passed away on 31.07.2022, while still in service. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner, as well as his stepmother applied for compassionate appointment. Since decision on petitioner’s claim was not taken by the Authority, therefore petitioner filed Writ Petition (SS) No. 369 of 2023, which was disposed of with a direction to competent authority to examine competing claims of petitioner and his stepmother for compassionate appointment in the light of Rule 7 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government 1 2026:UHC:4225 Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Rule 7 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is reproduced below: ““Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment.” If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof. 4. The competent authority considered the claim made by petitioner as well as his stepmother and decided that petitioner’s stepmother has a better claim for appointment because she has to support three minor children. This decision was taken on 02.06.2023. 5. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.08.2025, stepmother of the petitioner was offered appointment as Peon on compassionate ground. Petitioner has challenged the appointment order issued on 21.08.2025; however, he has not challenged the decision taken by competent authority under Rule 7 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on 02.06.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise was entered into between petitioner and his stepmother on 10.08.2022, according to which petitioner was entitled to get compassionate appointment and all other monetary benefits were to go to his stepmother. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that said compromise was considered by this Court, while deciding WPSS No. 369 of 2023. 2 2026:UHC:4225 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s stepmother backed out of the compromise entered into between the parties and thereafter another compromise was entered into on 20.08.2024, in which terms of earlier compromise was reiterated. It is thus contended that competent authority overlooked the said compromise entered into between the parties on 20.08.2024. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents refers to decision taken by competent authority (Annexure CA2 dated 02.06.2023) and submits that competent authority has considered the said aspect in his order and it has observed that petitioner’s stepmother backed out of the compromise, allegedly entered into on 20.08.2024. 9. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the appointment given to respondent No. 6. 10. It is not the contention of petitioner that respondent No. 6 is not a dependent or was not eligible to get compassionate appointment. His only contention is that petitioner is also entitled to certain benefits as he is one of the dependents. 11. This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of respondents that since petitioner is a grown-up and educated person of more than 32 years of age, therefore he can fend for himself and earn a living, while his stepmother has three minor children to support and she is also not educated. 3 2026:UHC:4225 12. Rule 7 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 contains guidelines which are to be followed while examining competing claims of two or more persons for compassionate appointment. By following those guidelines, respondent No. 6 was offered compassionate appointment. Nothing is brought on record to show that the decision taken by competent authority in favour of respondent No. 6 is flawed or contrary to the guidelines. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the appointment given to respondent No. 6. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire monetary dues in respect of petitioner's father have also been directed to be given to respondent No. 6, while petitioner has to support his unmarried sister; therefore, petitioner and his sister are entitled to part of monetary benefits. 14. Without expressing any opinion on the said contention, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to represent the matter before Managing Director, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited. If petitioner makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within eight weeks thereafter, but only after providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 27.05.2026 Mahinder 4