ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Udaivir Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.9.2000 passed by the Executive Engineer, Sarya Nahar Khand-8, Bahraich, opposite party no. 5 whereby the appointment of the petitioner was denied on the pretext that the U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable upon the employees of work-charge establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that he had filed Writ Petition No. 1239(S/S)2001 challenging the same impugned order but since he had not arrayed the proper parties in the writ petition, therefore, he requested that said writ petition be dismissed and he be granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition. This Court vide order dated 3.3.2005, which is contained in Annexure no. 6 to the writ petition, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn granting the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed present writ petition wherein affidavits have been exchanged.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, namely Sri Sant Ram was working as Beldar in the work charge establishment in the office of Executive Engineer, Sarya Nahar Khand-8, Bahraich w.e.f. 8.8.1977. Further, when the father of the petitioner was working as Beldar in the work charge establishment in the office of Executive Engineer, Saryu Nahar Khand-9, Bahraich, he died on 3.1.1999 during the course of his employment leaving four legal heirs i.e. (i) Smt. Vidyawati (widow), (ii) Anil Kumar Gupta (petitioner / son), (iii) Suneel Kumar Gupta (son), (iv) Km. Anita Gupta (Daughter). Learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed the succession certificate as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner being the eldest son of the deceased Sant Ram applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 in the office of respondent no. 5 and his claim was rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was working in the work charge establishment, therefore, the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules may not be provided.