HONBLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Ms. Shubhra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 and 4.
(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by opposite party no.4 denying to consider and appoint the daughter of the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to reconsider the candidature of her daughter and appoint her on any suitable post under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.7 to the writ petition, which is a judgment and order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in Service Single No.22494 of 2018, Abhishek Kumar Vs. Secretary, Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies and others, thereby similar controversy has been dealt with and similar impugned order has been set aside remanding back the matter to the concerning authority to reconsider the issue in the light of the identical orders being passed by this Court. For brevity, the order dated 22.2.2019 passed in the case of Abhishek Kumar (supra) is being reproduced herein below:- "Heard Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Subhra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance for opposite party no.1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.7.2018 passed by opposite party no.2 i.e. the Executive Director, U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation, Lucknow denying to appoint the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules on the ground that the department is running in loss and the Government Order dated 11.7.2003 provides that such Public Undertakings/ Corporations, which are running in loss or surplus employees are working, no appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules may be provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the identical issue has engaged attention of this Court in the case of Kamalbhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, Writ Petition No.2352 (S/S) of 2014, whereby this Court vide order dated 16.9.2016 has been pleased to quash the identical order being passed in the said matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred some relevant paragraphs of the said judgment, which are as under:- "Undisputedly Rules, 1974 has been adopted by the respondents. In the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that now the corporation is in profit. In view of the said fact the Government Order dated 11.7.2003 wherein it is mentioned that if the corporation is running in loss is not attracted in the present case. In regard to the communication dated 31.6.2014 in respect of some other employees the said communication does not have any legal status as it is merely a correspondence between Special Secretary and the Executive Director. The appointment on compassionate ground is an exception under the Rules, 1974. The main object of the appointment on compassionate ground is to give succour to the family which is living in indigent circumstances and they have no other source of livelihood. It is true that Supreme Court in a large number of cases has held that appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right if there is no provision under the Rule/Statute. But once the corporation has adopted the Rules, 1974 then it is bound by the provisions of the said Rules. Moreover in the case at hand the finding which has been recorded by the respondent no. 2 is that the corporation is in profit. In view of the above the impugned order needs interference. In previous decision this Court has clearly mentioned that respondent shall pass the order ignoring the previous orders dated 1.10.2012 and 22.11.2012. In both the said orders the same grounds were reiterated. Thus it was not proper for the second respondent to take the same ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment once those grounds have not found favour by this Court and an appropriate direction was issued to ignore those grounds." ;