RAMESH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER REHAND DAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of Writ Petition No. 18636 of 1992, Ramesh Singh Chauhan v. Executive Engineer, Rehand Dam and another, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner and consideration of his representation for appointment on the post, for which he is qualified and in which the petitioner's father was working. The petitioner's case in short is that the petitioner's father, who was working on the post of cleaner, died in an accident on 26.6.1991. On the principle of dying-in-harness policy of the State Government, the petitioner applied on 17.7.1991 and again on 4.9.1991 and 24.1.1992, filed as Annexures 1, 2, 3 to the writ petition, for his appointment.

(2.) THE petitioner had qualified for such appointment under U. P. Government Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974. THE provision of the said rule being man8atory, the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioner and the petitioner has by reason of the provisions of the said rule, has acquired legal right for such appointment on account of his being possessed of the requisite qualification.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 31174 of 1992, Smt. Raj Kumari Devi v. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner claimed to be the wife of the deceased Ram Lal and claimed appointment under the said 1974 Rules. Ramesh Singh Chauhan is the step-son of the petitioner. He is thirty years of age and is employed elsewhere. Therefore, he is not eligible for the said appointment. INstead of giving such appointment by an order dated 13.5.1992, the respondent No. 2 asked Smt. Raj Kumari Devi to obtain succession certificate, which is not necessary under Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, the respondent No. 2 is the appropriate authority for deciding the said dispute. IN view of Rule 7 of the Rules, the respondent No. 2 is bound to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application and decide the dispute. It has also been contended that she come within the definition of 'family' as given in Rule 2 (c) of the said Rules. Therefore, the demand of succession certificate is wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide.