AKHILESH KUMAR CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25.1.2000 communicated by letter dated 28.1.2000 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-12 toe the writ petition) whereby the claim for appointment of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been refused. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the aforesaid communication, no reason has been given for such denial and as such the same is liable to be quashed by this court. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father who was a Tubewell Operator having been given appointment in the year 1987. The appointment letter dated 19.3.87 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appointment was temporary for a period of three years and he could be considered for re-appointment. Prior to joining he was to be given fifteen days training and his salary was fixed at Rs.299.00 per month. He was also entitled to leave as per conditions given in the appointment letter.

(3.) LEARNED Standing counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex court reported in 2005 Vol. I UPLBEC page 1 State of U.P. and another Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi and has contended that the G.O. dated 26.10.98 was not considered in that case by the High Court while passing an interim order and Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of High Court, Paragraph 6 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-