JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2003 passed by the State Government as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on suitable post under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has further prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the dues of the father of the petitioner like arrears of salary in new pay scale, leave encashment of 65 days, arrears of House Allowance, G.P.F., Gratuity and other dues to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her father was working as Junior Engineer in U. P. Jal Nigam and he was posted at Kashipur in district Nainital. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 9/10.6.1982 in a road accident. The mother of the petitioner also died in the said accident. The petitioner was the only child of her parent and she was only six months old at the time of death of her parents. The petitioner is getting the family pension. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved an application for giving, her appointment on 6.8.2001. The copy of the said application is Annexure-6 and the reminder is Annexure-7 to this writ petition. The authorities of the Jal Nigam referred the matter to the U. P. Government for giving the relaxation in time limit in moving the application for appointment and the State Government has rejected the application of the petitioner stating that the application was moved after 17 years of the death of her father. It is alleged that the amount of Rs. 7.320 only has been sanctioned as gratuity. However, Rs. 9,457.88 has been shown as advance and the rest of the amount of Rs. 2,137.88 is being recovered from the family pension of the petitioner. It is alleged that till date the payment of arrears of salary in new pay scale and arrears of house allowance, G.P.F. etc. has not been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations for payment of the alleged dues but till date no action has been taken by the opposite parties. The copy of the representation of the petitioner for payment of dues is dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure-9).
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties, I find that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1982 and the petitioner is claming the appointment under dying in harness in the year 2004 after a gap of 22 years and the State Government has rejected the representation on the ground that the application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules has been moved after a gap of 17 years. I am of the view that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of the appointment in Dying-in-Harness.
4. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
"The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a number of such family a post muchiess a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of, an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.
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 being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
5. In the State of H. P. and Anr. v. Jafli Devi (Smt), (1997) 3 SCC 301, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the policy laid down by the Government regarding compassionate appointment should not be departed from by the High Court on the ground of sympathetic considerations and hardship of the person concerned.
6. In Haryana Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr., JT 1996 (2) SC 542, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the compassionate employment is not a vested right. It is an exception to a general rule. The object of compassionate appointment is to get the immediate relief to the family of the deceased and it is not a legal right.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition for getting the employment after 24 years under Dying-in-Harness after a gap of 24 years cannot be entertained.
8. The petitioner has also claimed for arrears of salary in new pay scale, leave encashment of 65 days, arrears of House Allowance, G.P.F., Gratuity and other dues. These are the disputed claims, which cannot be decided in the writ petition. The writ petition for getting these claims has been filed after 24 years and therefore, the writ petition suffers from laches and inordinate delay but anyhow, the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-9 dated 26.12.2003 is pending before the competent authority and on this relief a direction is given to the Managing Director, U. P. Jal Nigam to take the decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.12.2003 Annexure- 9 to the writ petition expeditiously and if, any amount is found due, it should be paid to the petitioner as early as possible.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ petition without granting any other reliefs.