- (1.) Heard Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner while working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the Panchayati Raj Department died during the tenure of his service. As there is no other male member in the family of the deceased to earn livelihood, so the petitioner moved an application for considering his case to give compassionate appointment under the U.P. Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Accordingly, the petitioner has been given temporary appointment on the post of Class III category in the department known as Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Faizabad under opposite party No. 3 by an order dated 18.1.2000 (Annexure No. 2) and he joined his duty.
(2.) Subsequently, the petitioner for redressal of his grievances approached this Court by filing the present writ petition before this Court with the following main relief:-- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the opp. party No. 3, the true copy of which is contained as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. parties to appoint/adjust the petitioner on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 in which pay scale he is working on supernumerary post of Junior Clerk in the department.
(3.) Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical circumstances this Court has passed the judgment and order dated 5.10.2012 in Writ Petition No. 5347 of 2012 "Akhilesh Kumar Tewari and another v. State of U.P.", the relevant portion is quoted herein below:-- The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they were appointed as Junior Clerk in the Panchayat Raj Vibhag, Pratapgarh under the Dying in Harness Rules on supernumerary posts created for the said purpose and were confirmed on the said supernumerary post. According to them, they are entitled for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. However, subsequently by a Government Order, the aforesaid posts were abolished. But again it was revived by another subsequent Government Order dated 30.8.2004. The petitioners claim that they may be considered for the said post. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1094 (SS) of 2005- Braj Pal Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, and submitted that in that case similarly situated persons were directed to be considered for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari and consequent thereto they were given such appointment. The petitioners claim that their cases are also squarely covered by the facts of the aforesaid case and as such they may also be extended the benefit of the order passed in the aforesaid case. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the representation of the petitioners has already been decided and the same has been rejected on the ground that there are no posts of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari available in the district and, therefore, the cases of the petitioners cannot be considered. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners confined his argument to the extent that as and when the vacancies of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari occurs, the claim of the petitioners may be considered in accordance with law. Having considered the submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this innocuous prayer made by the petitioners can be granted in this petition. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents that as and when the posts of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari occur in the district, the claim of the petitioners shall also be considered along with other claimants.;