- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of present this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 passed by opposite party No. 3, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition by which application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. The Petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground. Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that elder brother of Petitioner namely, Pawan Kumar was appointed on the post of N.R.E.P. (Account Clerk) and during his service he met with an accident resulting into his death on 16.3.2010. Pawan Kumar left behind two children and widow namely, Smt. Minakshi Agarwal (27 years). Petitioner being younger brother of deceased applied for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules with the plea that he is unmarried and is going to marry with widow of Late Pawan Kumar. The widow of deceased Smt. Minakshi Agarwal is suffering with mental agony and her health is also not good and she is not in a position to join service. Family members of the Petitioner has no objection if the Petitioner is given appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Petitioner is graduate and is only person who can look after the dependents of Late Pawan Kumar. The Petitioner's application was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 on the ground that as per rules, Petitioner does not come within the category of family members of the deceased Pawan Kumar.
(2.) The further submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Under Rule 10 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974) State Government has power to remove difficulties and the State Government is empowered to consider the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision in Smt. Geeta Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2008 5 ADJ 345 in which it has been observed that if the person who is claiming compassionate appointment is a needy person, then the Respondent authority must consider the case of such candidate sympathetically and provide compassionate appointment to such needy person. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing writ petition, submitted that the Petitioner is younger brother of the deceased and, as such, he does not fall within the definition of family members of the deceased. Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to get any appointment on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. The application of the Petitioner for employment was rightly rejected. The writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.;