JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Late Sri Rama Shankar Yadav, father of the petitioner was working as a driver in the office of the Project Manager, UP. Projects and Tube-wells Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 4) since 1979. He died in harness in May 2002, The petitioner made an application under the provisions of the Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for his appointment to respondent No. 4 on compassionate ground being the son of the deceased Rama Shankar Yadav.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no source of livelihood and that his subsequent representation for appointment on compassionate ground has fallen on deaf ears of the respondents, as such he has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider his appointment under the aforesaid Rules or issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. To my mind non-consideration of the application of the petitioner implies rejection of his application. The object for giving appointment under the Rules is that the family of the deceased Government servants may not be put to chill penury and the indigent circumstances are such that the dependants of the deceased Government servant cannot survive if a member of the family entitled for the same is not given appointment. No other source of livelihood can be a factor for arriving to the conclusion that the family is in indigent circumstances, but it cannot be taken as a rule that in every such case appointment on compassionate ground has to be offered. In spite of there being no source O livelihood a family may not be in an indigent circumstance for the purpose of serving the object of the Rules, The circumstances of each case have to be looked into before passing an order in regard to affording compassionate appointment. If the family is able to tied over the financial hardships the Court may refuse to issue any direction and may also not consider offering of appointment under the Rules.
5. A strong case has to be made out for interference by this Court. Any appointment under the Rules is to be offered by judicious approach looking into the facts and circumstances of each case and not in every case indiscriminately.
6. From the record it appears that the widow of the deceased is being paid family pension every month. She was also paid more than Rs. 66,000/- after the death of her husband. The amount, in my opinion, would be sufficient to meet the bare necessities on the death of bread earner.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the State Government has imposed a ban on the recruitments under the Rules in public sector undertakings and corporations etc., which are running in loss and as such on this ground also the petitioner cannot be appointed.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to make out any strong case for interference in the matter or for issuance of any direction to the authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Appointment under the Rules is not a matter of right. It is an appointment apart from normal mode of recruitment for which availability of posts, work etc. is also to be considered. It would result in over-staffing and surplus appointment if direction it; given in every case for appointment of dependents of deceased employees under the Rules.
9. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference by this Court.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.