LAWS(ALL)-1996-7-4

SHALLENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FAMILY PLANNING WELFARE U P LUCKNOW

Decided On July 30, 1996
SHALLENDRA KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY MEDICAL SERVICES AND FAMILY PLANNING WELFARE U P LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed against the im pugned order dated 12. 6. 96, Annexure 9 to the petition by which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for giving him employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has been found non suited on the ground of delay and laches for applying for the job on compassionate ground.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner's father died on 8. 8. 1974 while he was working with the respondents. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was only three years of age and after attain ing majority and requisite qualification he applied for job in the year 1990. According to the rules applicable in the instant case, the claim of the petitioner was found to be very state and not worth considerting.

(3.) THE issue was further considered by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (C. A. No. 10682'of 1995) decided on November 13, 1995, where in it was observed as under: "the very object of appointment of a de pendent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sud den demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long there after. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. " After considering all these judgments, the Supreme Court again in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another has held that under the Dying in Harness Rules the dependent of the deceased cannot claim the employment as a vested right and such employment cannot be given after expiry of the period provided under the statutory rules and where the rules do not provide for any limit, after the lapse of a reasonable period.