SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is being decided on a pure question of law as to whether would the petitioner's father was to be treated as a Government employee on the date when he died when the regularisation order was passed after his death?

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon on 1/2/1995 in Tehsil Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). After having put in substantial number of years of service, he was considered eligible for regularisation as per the U.P. Collection Peons' Service Rules, 2004. A list of peons who were to be regularized was issued on 24/12/2016 in which the petitioner's father was shown at Serial No. 9. However, since the petitioner's father was above 45 years of age, outright regularisation was not done but a permission was sought from the State Government for the relaxation of age. The State Government relaxed the age of the petitioner's father and considered him to be a fit case for being regularized on 22/2/2019. However, in between, on 30/11/2017, the petitioner's father died. The petitioner thereafter prayed for an appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Dying in Harness Rules") on 6/3/2019. The District Magistrate vide letter dtd. 15/3/2019 sought directions from the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as to what was to be done with regard to the case of the petitioner. However, when no response was there from the side of the respondent-Additional Chief Secretary, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-A No. 16701 of 2019 (Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.) wherein on 22/10/2019, the following order was passed:-

(3.) In response thereof the District Magistrate, Bhadohi passed the order dtd. 19/9/2020 which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.