Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to follow the judgments of this Court reported in : 2003 (1) UPLBEC 489, Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. and, 2002 (1) UPLBEC, Santosh Kumar Misra v. State of U. P. and others and thereby to ignore the impugned order dated 29.1.2003, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider for appointment of the Petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules.
(2.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that father of Petitioner was working on the post of Mate in Work -charge Establishment since 26.10.1987 and he died in harness on 15.7.2009. Petitioner moved an application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on 11.1.2010. However, Petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that Petitioner's father was a work -charge employee and in respect of work charge employees this facility has been withdrawn by the impugned Government Order dated 29.1.2003. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that financial condition of the Petitioner is very poor. Petitioner has to support his widow mother and one disabled brother aged about 28 years. There is no earning member in his family except the Petitioner. Further submission of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the opposite parties have given appointment to several dependents of work -charge employees of the Lok Nirman Vibhag in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the main object to get employment under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules is to help the family members of the deceased to get over the financial crisis. Petitioner's father served the department for more than 22 years. As such, Petitioner has a legal right to get employment under the 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.;