- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Vaish appearing for respondent Corporation and Sri P.K. Singh appearing for respondent No. 5. The first petitioner and fifth respondent are sisters and second petitioner their mother.
(2.) The father of the first petitioner was working in the respondent-power corporation and the Competent Court declared his civil death on 24.11.2005. The fifth respondent was given service under the dying in harness rules by the respondent-Corporation in 2006.
(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after being employed, the fifth respondent has married and has started living separately and is not maintaining the mother and the unmarried, unemployed sister (first petitioner) as per sub-clause (3) of Rule 5 of "The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying In-Harness Rules, 1974 rules, it is incumbent upon the person being appointed under the dying in harness rules to maintain the other family members, failing which such person can be proceeded under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 5 of 1974 Rules are as follows: "(3) Every appointment made under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall maintain other members of the family of deceased Government servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant immediately before his death and are unable to maintain themselves. (4) Where the person appointed under sub-rule (1) neglects or refuses to maintain a person to whom he is liable to maintain under sub-rule (3), his services may be terminated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as amended from time to time.";