KAMLESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) WITH the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage itself.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : 1994 (68) FLR 1191 (SC), has clearly laid down the law that once a person is given compassionate appointment under the Dying -in -Harness Rules then he cannot claim benefit of the said rules for the purpose of being adjusted on any other post. According to him, the said benefit is available only at the first instance of entry into service and hence, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 24.9.2007 suffers from any illegality whatsoever.