BIVEK PRATAP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider and take effective action on the claim of the petitioner for his compassionate appointment, in view of communication dated 26.10.1999 issued by respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner died on 09.01.1990 the petitioner was minor and was not entitled for appointment under dying-in-harness Rule therefore, mother of the petitioner, subsequently moved an application dated 01.01.1995 for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. When nothing was done, she filed a writ petition no.35467 of 1999 (Bibek Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of vide order dated 20.08.1999 directing the respondent no.2 to make a reference for relaxation in the matter to the State Government keeping in view Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants, Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The said order was duly communicated to the authority concerned. Further submission is that till date nothing has been done. The claim of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment as there was no laches on his part.