ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23rd October, 2001 passed by District Development Officer, Ballia rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment as dependent of deceased employee. The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are; petitioner's father was appointed as Gram Sevak/Gram Vikas Adhikari on 29th September, 1961. It has been stated in the writ petition that petitioner's father died on 23rd January, 1985 and thereafter an application was made by mother of the petitioner for providing job to the petitioner and for other benefits. From the facts, which have come up on the record, it is clear that petitioner's father absented from his duties from 31st May, 1973. He served the department from 24th October, 1961 to 30th May,1973 and thereafter he was not working. Subsequently he died on 23rd January, 1985. The petitioner's case is that the Joint Development Commissioner has written a letter on 30th July, 1987 to the District Development Officer, Ballia in which it was mentioned that immediate action be taken with regard to general provident fund and arrears of salary of late Sri Badrinath Tiwari and action be also taken for appointment of the petitioner as dependent of deceased employee. The petitioner states that a writ petition was also filed which was disposed of on 29th May, 1997 with the direction that petitioner's claim regarding G.P.F. of her late husband and arrears of salary be considered and claim of petitioner's (Smt. Prabhawati Devi) son for providing the job be also considered in accordance with law. Reference has also been made to the letter of Joint Development Commissioner to District Development Officer, Ballia that action should be taken for appointment as dependent of deceased employee under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Subsequently an order has been passed by District Development Officer on 23rd October, 2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The District Development Officer in his order has stated that petitioner's father has not worked after 30th May, 1973 and absented from duty and according to Financial Hand Book Part -II Vol. 4 Rule 18, the maximum period on which a person can remain on leave is five years. It has further been held that petitioner's father was absent from 31st May, 1973 and retirement benefits have been fixed treating his period of service up to 31st May, 1973 and the aforesaid benefits have been accepted without any objection. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the District Development Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of petitioner's father were never terminated after 31st May, 1973 and till his death he will be deemed to be in service since he had been sending applications for medical leave and other leave from time to time. The second submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that amendment made in the year 1993 in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 will be prospective and that will not be applicable in case of the petitioner. The third submission raised by Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Development Officer has no authority to reject the claim of the petitioner since he is not the appointing authority and further the Joint Development Commissioner had already directed him to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Joint Development Commissioner has decided the claim in favour of the petitioner, hence, the District Development Officer has no jurisdiction to reject the claim of the petitioner.;