DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 18-3-1989 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor with a prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint petitioner No. 1 on some suitable post accordingly to his qualification under Dying in Harness Rules. It is further prayed that a direction be issued for payment of retiral benefits of Late Ram Prasad his father to be paid to the petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is son of Late Ram Prasad and petitioner No. 2 is wife of Late Ram Prasad. The facts of the case are that father of the petitioner No. 1 was working on the post of Ward-boy. He was dismissed from service in 1989 and died in 1997. On 20-8-2001 for the first time, a claim was made by petitioner No. 1 before the Chief Medical Officer that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 7-3-1997 but his dues of GPF, LIC, wages etc. have not been made. By letter dated 9-10-2001 Annexure (5) o the writ petition the petitioner No. 2 was informed that at the time of death of her husband he was not employed as he had been dismissed much earlier. She was also informed that according to the various GOs. , the dependents of Government Servant are not entitled to GPF. Gratuity etc. but papers for rest of the dues have been forwarded over to the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor. Again by letter dated 6-10-2001 petitioner No. 2 was informed that it was not possible to give appointment on compassionate ground to petitioner No. 1 as his father had not died in harness. It was also admitted by Late Ram Prasad in his letter dated 1993 in which he had requested for balance wages of 10 days and other dues. It also admitted that he was dismissed from service from Prathmik Swastha Kendra where he was working as Ward-boy at that time by order dated 25th September, 2002 a sum of Rs. 10,044 was released in favour of the petitioner No. 2 towards the balance dues. Thus it is evident from the record that father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 had not died in harness but was dismissed in service about 10 years back. He was living with his family. The petitioner No. 1 filed application for appointment under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which was not maintainable. Petitioner No. 2 has also been paid all the dues as it apparent from Annexure No. 7.