V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has come with request for quashing of order dated 05.04.2011 passed by Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, proceeding to reject the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.
(2.) EARLIER , petitioner had rushed to this Court by preferring writ petition No. 52437 of 2010, wherein this Court on 28.08.2010 had asked the authority concerned to take decision on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court, claim of the petitioner had been considered and non -suited on the premises that services of the petitioner's father had been disengaged on 23.06.2006 and at the point of time when he died on 04.02.2009, he was not in employment, and in view of this petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been refused. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court for the reliefs mentioned above. Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that the petitioner's had served the department for sufficiently long period, and in view of this, petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Gaurav Pachauri vs. State of U.P. and others, : 2011 (10) ADJ 379.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that the claim of the petitioner does not fall within the scope and ambit of the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as accepted position is that much prior to his death, services of the petitioner's father had been disengaged, and the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not at all liable to be considered, as such the decision taken is rightful decision and requires no interference by this Court.;