DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.6.2009, passed by opposite party no. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the appointment of the petitioner on a suitable post under Dying in Harness Rules on the compassionate ground within a prescribed period. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of petitioner namely, Shanti Swaroop Yadav, while posted as Constable at Lucknow died due to illness on 18.1.1998 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ram Dulari and the petitioner as legal heirs and successor. Since at the time of death of his father, petitioner was minor, as such, when he became major in the year 2001and also passed Prathama Examination (equal to High School), his mother moved an application before the opposite party no. 3 seeking appointment to the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on the compassionate ground. The petitioner's mother also submitted an affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow stating therein that she has no objection if petitioner is given appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. However, petitioner's matter remained pending with the opposite parties. In the meantime, the State Government issued Notification dated 28.7.2006 and vide 7th Amendment relaxation of limitation was provided. The State Government also issued a Government Order dated 08.9.2006 to that effect. When no heed was paid by the opposite parties on petitioner's application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, the petitioner again moved an application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on 01.02.2007 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. Petitioner's matter was sent to the Government vide letter dated 27.5.2009. Thereafter, on 11.6.2009 opposite party no. 3 informed the petitioner that monthly income of family is sufficient for maintenance of the deceased family and it has not been found justified to provide him limitation for employment under Dying in Harness Rules.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a legal right to get employment under Dying in Harness Rules and action of the opposite parties in not considering petitioner's application for giving an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2010 (28) LCD 277 in which it has been observed that while evaluating the financial destitution or penurious condition authorities have to keep in mind as to whether dependent of deceased employee has got sufficient source of livelihood to meet out the minimum requirement of life. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner being sole claimant for getting employment in place of deceased father, has a rightful claim for being appointed on a suitable post. The surviving family members of the deceased are facing great financial crisis and the opposite parties are under obligation to make appointment of petitioner on suitable post under Dying in Harness Rules on the compassionate ground.;