SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This Court had passed an order yesterday. The relevant extract of which is as follows:- "Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Power and Energy, Government of U.P., Lucknow by which the case of the petitioner for relaxation in time for making application has been considered and rejected for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. From a perusal of the order dated 30.8.2018, it appears that initially petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2013 (Sidhhu Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by this Court without entering into the merits of the case on 24.5.2013 with the direction to the State Government to consider whether the time prescribed under Rules of 5 years can be relaxed for making the application by the dependent of the deceased employee. The State Government has considered the matter and has found that the petitioner's father died on 21.4.1995. The petitioner filed the application for compassionate appointment after 17 years. The appointing authority had already rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by its order dated 30.8.2013 against which the petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2013. This Court had set aside the order dated 28.1.2013 but had referred the matter at State Government and the power to condone the delay for compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules was vested with the State Government. The State Government has found that the petitioner's father died in the year 1995. There was no good ground to give compassionate appointment to him after 18 years as the Dying-in- Harness Rules was framed only to give succour to the family of the deceased government servant facing indigent circumstances and financial hardship on the sudden death of bread earner, the government has rejected the case of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court referred in Vivek Yadav v. Sate of U.P. and others, [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2776]."
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents have both placed reliance upon the judgments which are being considered by this Court now.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 2 ADJ 312. It is his submission that the judgment reported in Vivek Yadav (supra) by the Division Bench was also considered by this Court in the Full Bench decision as the question before it was framed thus:- "(1) Whether the judgments in Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P., 2010 (10) ADJ 289 and Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others:2010 (7) ADJ 1, on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 5 (iii) and the proviso thereto read with Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, lay down the correct position of law?";