RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been settled by this Court, accordingly, with the consent of parties. I proceed to decide the writ petition of the admission stage.

(2.) THE petitioner's father was a workcharge employee who expired on 11-9-2001. After the death of his father, petitioner has applied for her appointment under dying-in-harness rules, but, petitioner's application for appointment under dying-in-harness rules has been rejected on the ground that employees working on workcharge basis are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(3.) IN view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 25th April, 2003 and 16th September, 2002 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition passed by Opposite Party No. 5 & 6 with all consequential benefits. The opposite parties are commanded to consider petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds and issue appointment order expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .