GEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVT.OF U.P., LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The facts lie in a very narrow compass and are almost adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 43653 of 1999 allowed on 9.10.2006. The said writ petition had been filed by the Petitioner questioning the correctness of the order of the State Government dated 16.9.1999 whereby her claim of compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules had been turned down on the ground that the Petitioner's husband died in harness while working as a part-time Tube-well Operator.

(3.) The aforesaid issue was dealt with in detail in the said judgment and on fact pleaded it was found that the Petitioner's husband was also amongst those part-time Tube-well Operators, who had contested the matter in relation to their regularisation up to the Apex Court and the State Government had lost the battle. Immediately before the policy of regularisation, which was promulgated under the Government Order dated 16.12.1996, the Petitioner's husband died on 4.11.1996 which was in very close proximity to the issuance of the said Government Order. The Writ Petition was, therefore, allowed holding that the status of the Petitioner's husband changed and he became entitled to be treated as a regular Tube-well Operator or in other words akin to a regular Tube-well Operator. The aforesaid judgment has not been assailed and has become final between the parties. The order of the State Government refusing to approve the appointment of the Petitioner dated 16.9.1999 was quashed and the authority was directed to pass an appropriate order in the light of the observations made therein.