CHANDAN KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR B H U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. The matter relates to appointment of petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules as Sweeper in Banaras Hindu University. Petitioner's father-Ram Sewak was working as Safaiwala in Physics Department. He died in harness. Petitioner being the son has applied for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules after death of his father. He was given temporary appointment on Daily Wage basis. He moved an application for substantive appointment by regularising his services, but his claim for regular appointment was denied and his application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23rd/24th August, 1994 on the ground that petitioner's mother is in employment of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner's father died in harness on 20-5-1994. He was appointed on 14-6- 1994 on Daily Wage basis whereas he was entitled to get regular appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. His claim for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was rejected on the ground that petitioner's mother was in employment at that time. He further urged that petitioner was dependent on his father and his mother was residing separately, but this aspect was not at all considered by the University while rejecting his claim for regular appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. It is further urged that impugned order otherwise also suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record as it was passed without application of mind without considering that the petitioner was dependent of father.

(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that there is no finding recorded by the Banaras Hindu University whether petitioner was dependent of his father on date of death of his father. One of the relevant question of fact required to be considered for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is that the applicant was dependent of the deceased employee, if it is so, he may be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. Annexure-4 to the writ petition is the Application of petitioner to the University in which he had clearly stated that his mother was separately residing and the petitioner did not receive any financial assistances from his mother. In Paragraph-4 of the Supplementary Affidavit also petitioner's dependency on his father was stated. It is important to notice here that University has already appointed petitioner as back as on 14-6-1994 on Daily Wage basis and his application for substantive appointment was rejected by the impugned order, but he was allowed to work. Petitioner rightly filed present writ petition only after stopping petitioner finally to work even on Daily Wage in 2000.