VEER BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.12.2009, passed by opposite party no. 4, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate grounds under the provisions of U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, treating the deceased as a regular employee of the department.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a legal right to get employment under the provisions of the Dying in Harness Rules and action of the opposite party no. 4 in not considering petitioner's application for giving an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. The mother of the petitioner had rendered 36 years of service in the department and, as such, she was fully entitled for regularisation of her services. Petitioner's case falls under sub clause (iii) of clause (a) of Rule 2 of Dying in Harness Rules.1974. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1992 (4) SCC 118 : (AIR 1992 SC 2130)and stated that the State being a model employer, should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or the person concerned, as the case may be, where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the court presumes that there is regular need for her services on a regular post.