PRAVESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner No.1 father was appointed as a Class-IV employee in 1984 in the Public Works Department and died in harness on 19.3.2007. The Service Book of the petitioner's father indicates the date of birth as 15.9.1956. This date of birth recorded in the service book is still existing and has not been modified till the date of the death of the petitioner's father nor has been modified even after his death. Since the petitioners' father died-in-harness, the petitioners moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground and for release of pension, gratuity etc. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 7.12.2007. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds, that the approach adopted by the respondent is perverse and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There is a basic flaw in the stand taken by the respondents. Rule 3 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services Determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974, provides as under:-