RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to give appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Dying in Harness Rules.). The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's father Late Gaya Prasad was appointed on muster roll on temporary basis and was working at Itaunja Kumhrawan Road in Sthanik Abhiyanta 2nd P.W.D., Lucknow. Thereafter, petitioner's father was transferred to Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-2 P.W.D., Chhatauni, Dehras Road, Gonda and while working there he died on 17.8.1994. The petitioner's mother made application for compassionate appointment of petitioner on 10.4.1995. When no action was taken by opposite parties, the petitioner made several representation, raising his grievance, but till date no action has been taken by the opposite parties to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel while opposing writ petition, submitted that the petitioner's father was appointed on muster roll temporary basis and was not a regular incumbent, as such, petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, his application for employment was rightly rejected. The present writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) I have considered arguments of learned Counsel for respective parties and gone through the record.