RAMU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this writ petition is where father and mother both are in service and one of them dies, whether hfs son can claim appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

(2.) The father of petitioner Sri Jangi Lal, and his mother Smt. Radha wife of Sri Jangi Lal both were working as sweepers on permanent posts in Nagar Palika, Mirzapur. On 20.9.1991 Smt. Radha mother of petitioner died. The petitioner moved an application on 24.9.1991 claiming appointment as sweeper under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. He was appointed by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika. Mirzapur, as sweeper on 10.10.1991 on compassionate ground on probation of one year. He joined as sweeper from the dale of his appointment but his salary was not paid inspite of resolution dated 3.3.1993 passed by the Nagar Palika. The President also directed the Executive Officer to pay salary of petitioner. On 12.5.1993, the Executive Officer passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. It is this order dated 12.5.1993 which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that mother of the petitioner was a permanent sweeper and on her death, petitioner was entitled for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules as salary of his father was not sufficient for the entire family. He claimed that he was dependent on his mother, therefore, he was entitled for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Learned counsel further urged that the Impugned order of termination has been passed by the respondents without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therefore, the termination of petitioner's services is illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has urged that since father of the petitioner was in service as sweeper, Government Order dated 16.10.1974 which provided for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, was not applicable and the petitioner could not be appointed under the said Government Order. It is urged that since the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and without jurisdiction and was made under mistake, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner.