SHAHZAD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri J. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey for the opposite arty Nos. 1 to 4. Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No.1.

(2.) PETITIONER 's father who was a regular employee of the opposite parties died on 9.4.2006. There is regulation No.77 of of UPSRTC Regulations-1981 which is quoted below:-

(3.) THE application was moved in the year 2006, we are in the middle of 2010. The very purpose of legislating the Dying in Harness Rules was to give immediate help to the family whose bread earner has been snatched away by the mighty hands of the death. The opposite parties while dealing with such matters show such apathy and indifference as if death will never touch any other person except the unfortunate family which is before him. Eternal reality of life is to be faced by every body who has come in this world. The State being alive to this situation had promulgated a special legislation for giving one of the dependents a job so that the family does not come to streets. The very purpose of this legislation is negated by the attitude of the opposite party. This attitude has to be deprecated by this Court. The opposite parties should have taken a decision either way.