V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) EARLIER petitioner had preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37438 of 2011 (Kaushal Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court and this Court on 11.07.2011 has proceeded to pass following order: Since the petitioner has already approached the authority competent raising his claim for compassionate appointment and his claim has not yet been decided, this petition is finally disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan and others vs. Kishore Chandra Pandey : AIR 2009 SC 3121 by speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the dat of production of certified copy of this order.
(2.) PETITIONER thereafter represented the matter and claim of the petitioner has been considered for grant of compassionate appointment and same has been turned down vide order dated 14.09.2011 on the ground that petitioner's father was part -time tubewell operator and has never been regularized, in view of this petitioner's claim will not fall within the scope and ambit of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. At this juncture petitioner has again rushed to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that part time tubewell operators were as good as regular tubewell operator and claim of the petitioner in all eventuality is liable to be considered and the view which has been taken is erroneous view and same is liable to be set aside.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and once father of the petitioner has never regularized, no relief or reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner.;