JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner's application for giving appointment to her son under the Dying-in-Harness Rules has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has sufficient means. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain the family and, therefore, the appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules should be given to the petitioner's son.
2. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, holding brief of Mr. Navin Sinha on the other hand submits that the Dying-in-Harness Rules is not a matter of right. The question is to be considered on the basis of the financial position of the family itself, He has relied on a decision in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel at length.
4. It appears from Annexure-1 to the writ petition that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 1,02,349.14 Paise as Provident Fund dues and a sum of Rs. 76.321.66 Patse as Gratuity. A family pension of Rs. 2,264 per month has also been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner apart from the income normally the petitioner receives from agriculture, etc. an increase of Rs. 3,200 per month and the family is in possession of various immoveable properties, including residential house. Two of the daughters have already been married and one son is self-employed. On these grounds, the claim has been refused. Mr. Singh has contended that the marriage of the two daughters have been made after the amount of Provident Fund and Gratuity were received and those were spent for the purpose of marrying the daughters. He relies on the representation contained In Annexure-2 to the writ petition, where it has been pointed out that one of the son was married and for the purpose of solemnizing the marriage of the son of the petitioner, the petitioner had incurred a loan. This very fact indicates that the financial position of the petitioner is not sound otherwise they would not have gone for the marriage of the son. In the society, it is the daughter's marriage which is taken seriously and has to be undertaken even when the person is incapable even by incurring loan. Here the family is capable of feeding one additional mouth with the expectation of further addition in the family. Thus it shows that the ground on which the petitioner's claim was rejected has some substance.
5. In the decision in the case of Umesh Kumur Nagpal (supra) the Apex Court had held that the question of appointment on compassionate ground requires consideration of certain factors. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle benefit of a job, financial condition to the family has to be taken into account and the job on compassionate ground cannot be offered as a matter of course irrespective of financial condition. Therefore, it is open to the respondents to consider as to whether the financial condition of an incumbent is such as to warrant giving of an appointment on compassionate ground.
6. Having regard to the said decision and the ratio laid down therein, the present case it seems that the respondents have taken into consideration the financial condition of the family. The question that her son is self-employed is also not disputed. That apart, the question whether the financial condition of the petitioner is sound or not is a question of fact, which is determined by the respondents, it is only by way of presumption that two of the daughters have been married when the amount was received, since no date of the marriage has been disclosed in the writ petition or in the application itself. Whereas counsel for the respondents contended that the marriage of the two daughters had taken place during the life-time of the deceased employee. These are again disputed questions of fact, which this Court cannot go into as the respondents have determined a finding of fact by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means. Unless it is proved that such finding of fact is perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the same on these grounds. Therefore. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
7. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is. accordingly dismissed. No cost.