SATYA PRAKASH Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The petitioner herein has approached this Court praying for a direction requiring the opposite parties to appoint him at a suitable post/job in place of his deceased father who had died while in service in the year 1970.

(2.) THE notice on behalf of the opposite parties were accepted by Sri S. K. Srivastava, Advocate on 21-2- 1989 and a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite parties in opposition to the claim of the petitioner asserting that no ground at all has been made out of the issuance of a direc tion as sought for and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. In this case of the parties have exchanged the affidavits.

(3.) THE f acts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Babu Ram Saxena, the father of the petitioner had died on 11-1-1970, while holding the post of 'patrol Man' employed under the U. P. State Electricity Board who joined service on 10-5-1967 at Sitapur. According to the case of the petitioner, he was a minor aged about 4 years at the time of the death of big father. It is asserted that on attaining majority, the petitioner applied for his appointment. on compassionate ground in place of his father who had died in harness. This application is disclosed to have been moved somewhere in the year 1985 i. e. about 15 years after the death of the employee. In the year 1970, there was no such order in force which provided for any appointment being offered to a member of the family of a deceased employee dying in harness. However, Rules in this regard appear to have been framed in the year 1975 when U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad Sewa Kal Men Mrit Parishadiya Sewakon Ki Bharti Niyamawali, 1975 was enforced. Under those Rules as averred by the petitioner, the benefit envisaged under the Rules could be provided for only if the application in this regard from the dependent member of the family of the deceased employee was received within sit months of the death of the employee. However, it is asserted that from 8-4-1981, the time limit of six months was deleted and it was provided that the dependent of the deceased employee could be granted the benefit available under the Rules without a restriction in regard to time limit. THE amendment in the Rules incorporated under Amendments of 1931 also provided that the claims which arose prior to 1974 in regard to the appointment provided in the Rules could be disposed of by the 'adhyafksha' of the Board. However, on 6-1-1992, by notification issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board, the aforesaid provision was rendered inoperative and the power of the 'adhyaksha' of the Board provided for in the Amendment incorporated in the year 1981, was withdrawn with the direction that no claims anterior to 20-6-1974 was to be entertained at any stage.