- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 dies in harness on 13-4-1989 while in service with respondents and the father of petitioner No. 2, who was working as a Wagon Drill Operator in Grade A in Cement Factory, Churk, Quarry Gurma, died on 2-6-89. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No 2 applied for giving appointment in kith ana kin policy in accordance with the rules known as U. P. Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 ( here in after called as the rules), which have been made applicable to the respondents as well. As they were not given employment, they ap proached this Court for issuing a direction to the respondents to give them employ ment on compassionate ground on Class-Ill posts. This Court, vide its order dated 2-2-93 issued an interim mandamus to the respon dents to consider their case for compas sionate employment or to show cause.
(2.) THE respondents preferred to show cause and filed their reply to the writ peti tion. THE main ground taken by the respon dents is that the aforesaid rules were made applicable in case of respondents vide Government Order dated 31st August, 1991 and the said Government Order was com municated to the General Manager by means of a communication dated 5-2-1992, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the said rules, as the employees had died prior to the date of said Government Order. In reply to the averments made by the petitioners that the respondents had been giving compassionate employment even prior to the issuance of the said order and to the illustrations taken by the petitioners the respondents have made a specific reply to the said allegations to the effect that the Chairman and the Managing Director of respondent company issued an order dated 17th November, 1982 to pro vide the compassionate employment to the dependents of persons dying in harness. However, due to the changed circumstan ces, economic, financial and working condi tion of the factory, the Chairman issued another order dated 16th June, 1986 for not providing such an employment. The said orders have been annexed as Annexures CA-2 and CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. In the additional counter-affidavit a similar ex planation has been given for the employ ment given to the persons on compas sionate ground, after 16-6-86. It has specifi cally been mentioned that such dependents were given employment on casual vacan cies. Heard Shri Ashokbhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) IN Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of INdia and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976, the Apex Court observed that the pur pose of providing such appointment is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family, such employ ment should, therefore, be provided imme diately to redeem the family in distress and there should be no unreasonable delay in making such appointment. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 469.;