ORDER N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the compassionate ground on suitable post as per her qualification and for direction to the opposite party No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.6.2003, by a speaking order. On the first date of hearing on admission, the learned counsel for the Lucknow University sought time to show the Rules applicable for giving appointment on compassionate ground but on the subsequent date surprisingly nobody appeared from the side of the Lucknow University.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner herself has filed a supplementary-affidavit enclosing the copy of the dying-in-harness rules applicable in the matter of the State Government employees and it has been averred in the affidavit that these rules have been adopted by the Lucknow University for the non-_teaching staff of the University. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner Shri Satya Narain Awasthi was employed on the post of Lab Operator in the Lucknow University. His father died on 4.3.1986, when he was in service of the University having completed 20 years of service. At the time of death of her father, the petitioner was minor aged about 16 years. The petitioner applied for the appointment as the mother was illiterate. Afterwards, the mother also died on 12.11.1994 and now the petitioner is unable to maintain herself. She applied for appointment on 4.12.1989 but no attention was given by the opposite parties. She completed Intermediate Examination in the year 1991. She sent reminders but no decision has been taken.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that after a lapse of 17 years, the petitioner has no legal right to get the appointment on compassionate ground. The rules relied on by the petitioner prescribed a limit of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee for applying the appointment on compassionate ground. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tie over the sudden crisis. The object is not to get a member of such family a post much less a post for the post held by the deceased. Mere death of an employee in-harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. It was also held that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner.
4. In view of the above, no such relief can be granted in this writ petition after a lapse of 17 years from the date of the death of the father of the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has stated that she has applied for employment in the year 1989 and since then no action has been taken by the University, therefore, instead of granting any mandate, it can be directed that the opposite party No. 1 after ascertaining all the facts, shall decide the pending representation of the petitioner which was given in the year 1989 if a copy of which is furnished by the petitioner herself to the Vice Chancellor along with the copy of this judgment.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party No. 1 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date the petitioner serves the copy of this order along with the copy of the representation alleged to have been given by her in the year 1989.