RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the post of peon or any other Fourth Class post under Dying in Harness Rules.

(3.) The father of the petitioner was working as a Principal in the Primary Vidyalaya, Pipra and he died during service on 25.3.1977. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. He applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 11.2.1998. It is alleged that the mother of the petitioner has also died and there is no source of income in the family. He further moved a representation on 19.5.2003 but was of no effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred U.P. Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as amended by Vth Amendment Rules, 1999. Rule 5 of these Rules provides that only the family member of the deceased employee shall be given appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules who applied for appointment within a period of five years from the date of death of the Government employee. The Government has the power to relax this Rule. Sub-rule (3) has been added in Rule 5 by amendment in the year 2001. A condition has been imposed for the appointment. It has been provided that the compassionate appointment will be subject to the condition that the family member getting employment will maintain other family members of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a circular of Basic Shiksha Parishad/Mratak Ashrit/1380-573/2000-2001, dated 8,11.2000. It has been provided by this notification that in such cases all the applications shall be forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Parishad for taking decision. The rules imposed a restriction for entertaining an application after five years of the death of the Government employee for giving appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules after a lapse of a period of 26 years from the date of death of his father.