HARISH CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of the petitioner died on 2-4-1987 while he was in service. THE petitioner was entitled to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of the Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Accordingly he made an application to the respondent No. 1 for appointment as Warden. THEreafter he made a representation. Nothing was done. Ultimately the petitioner came to this Court on 24-11-1988 praying for a Mandamus that the respondent No 1 may be directed to dispose of the representation at an early date. This Court granted that relief. Ultimately the representation was rejected.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that father of the petitioner died in harness and he was entitled to be appointed as a Warden. The case set up by the respondent No. 1 was that there was no vacancy at that time. Even if it is a fact then it was incumbent on the authority concerned to have created a post and appointed the petitioner as has been held in the case reported in Smt. Sushma Gosain v. The Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976.