Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed praying for quashing of order passed by respondent and seeking to appoint petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate grounds.
Petitioner’s father who was the confirmed employee and was working as class IV employee, as Anusevak in the School Education Department, had met with the sad demise subsequent to which being one of the members of the family, the petitioner has raised his claim to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds; based on the qualification, which he had claimed to have possessed at the relevant point of time but the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner and the elder son of the deceased since he was already employed in ITBP, hence in that eventuality, the claim of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that if Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules; itself was taken into consideration then if a logical interpretation is given to the said provision, it nowhere provides for or creates any embargo that if one of the family members of the deceased was already employed in a government department, it would impede the rights of another member of the family to be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, except that of the spouse of the deceased government servant.
The Court based upon the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2010 dated 30-04-2010 where it had observed that if one of the sons of the deceased employee is already engaged in a government department, that engagement would be treated as to be an independent engagement in his own capacity and rights and if Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is interpreted that in itself will not debar the second son to claim for an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying-in-Harness Rules as it remains his independent right allowed the writ petition. The Court again clarified that the engagement of the elder son will not create an impediment in any manner, whatsoever in considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.
[Dineh Chanda Garkoti v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1186, decided on 23-10-2021]
Mr K.K. Harbola, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr P.C. Bisht, Addl. CSC, for the State
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
