SUMAN RAWAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1993, the petitioner's husband was given appointment as Daily Wage Mali in the office of the opposite parties and worked continuously till the date of death, i.e. 13.5.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only on an application, the petitioner has been offered appointment on daily wage basis and there is no provision to appoint a person on daily wage basis under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, but in spite of that, formal order of appointment has not been given to the petitioner. Petitioner's counsel further submits that since she has been engaged on daily wage basis, she preferred a representation for regular appointment, which is pending disposal. Accordingly, he prays that the authority concerned may be directed to be decided the representation dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure 6) expeditiously, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the opposite party No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation, a copy whereof is Annexure No.6 on record, in accordance with law, within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of finally in above terms.