- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. A counter-affidavit has been filed today and an amendment application has also been filed which has been allowed today.
(2.) The basic challenge in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the learned District Judge to engage the petitioner as a dependant of an employee who had died-in-harness. During the pendency of the writ petition the amendment application was filed challenging the order of the learned District judge whereby the claim of the petitioner has been formally rejected vide order dated 16th December, 2005.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's father went missing while he was working as a permanent employee in the year 1997. An F.I.R. was lodged and his whereabouts were not traceable as such the petitioner made a request to the learned District Judge to grant him compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness rules. It is submitted that a report in favour of the petitioner was submitted and the matter was under consideration but since no orders were passed therefore the present writ petition was preferred.;