Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to decide the representation of the Petitioner (Annexure No. 3) within a stipulated period fixed by this Court. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to appoint the Petitioner on any suitable post under Dying in Harness Rules. Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that father of Petitioner namely, Shiv Singh while he was posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Hanseva, block Hasanganj, district Unnao, died on 16th September, 1988. At the time of death of his father, Petitioner was a minor. The Petitioner became major on 30.4.2005 and then he moved application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on 07.11.2006 (Annexure No. 1). The Petitioner also moved an application (Annexure No. 2) to the opposite party No. 2 on 03.02.2008 for redressal of his grievance but nothing has been done so far. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner again moved an application on 13.12.2009 (Annexure No. 3) which is also waiting for its turn for disposal. Due to inaction of opposite party No. 2, the Petitioner and his family is at the verge of starvation and is running from pillar to post.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the purpose of giving appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is to give immediate relief from the hardships caused to the family due to death of deceased but if a family can carry on livelihood for more than 12 years then there appears to be no financial crisis in the family. There is no law that if the dependent of the deceased is minor then in that situation the authority should wait to provide him appointment on having become major. the appointment cannot be granted to any member of the family under these Rules. Secondly, an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right because object of making an appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Admittedly, in the present case, the Petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father and on attaining the age of majority he claimed appointment under Dying in Harness Rules as a matter of right. Present writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.;