- (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 3518(S/S) of 1999, by which the writ petition was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties -appellants to provide the benefit of the judgment and order dated 15.12.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 41226 of 1998 to the respondent -petitioner.
(2.) AWADESH Kumar Maurya, legal heir of late Achhaya Ram Maurya, who had expired while in service, moved an application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Representation was preferred by the mother of respondent on 21.8.1997 but appointment under Dying in Harness Rules was not offered to the heir of the deceased.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the inaction of the authorities in not considering the application of the respondent for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, the respondent -petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 3518(S/S) of 1999. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to provide the same benefit as given to the petitioner of Writ Petition No.41226 of 1998. Being dis -satisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order dated 9.12.2003 the State has filed the present appeal interalia on the ground that Achhay Ram Maurya was a part time Tube -well Operator and as such his dependent is not entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the judgement passed in the case of Smt. Phoola Devi Versus State of U.P. which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed in Special Appeal No. 117 of 2000, State of U.P. another Vs. Smt. Phoola Devi. In these circumstances, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.;