Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 1.4.2006, passed by the opposite party No. 2 (Annexure No. 1), whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that allegedly the U.P. Dependents of Government Servants (Dying -in -Harness) Rules, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974'] do not apply for the work charge employees, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given appointment in place of his deceased father. On an objection being raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the father of the petitioner, who is admittedly working in work -charge establishment, cannot be said to be a permanent employee or temporary employee, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to give reply.
(3.) HOWEVER learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, in the cases of Bharat v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2005 (23) LCD 332; Satendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2005 (23) LCD 333; Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2003 (1) UPLBEC 489 and Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2002 (1) UPLBEC 337 has directed the concerned authorities to appoint the dependents of the deceased who worked as daily wager or in work -charge establishment and as such, the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered with the aforesaid decisions.;