Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The father of the petitioner was employed as a daily wager in the year 1982 and worked in that capacity till he died-in-harness on 8.3.2003. The petitioner applied for an appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness-Rules. This application remained pending and consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a Class-IV post.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner's father worked as a daily rated employee and that his services was not regularised and therefore the petitioner's father was not a Government servant as contemplated under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Consequently, the benefit under the Dying-in-Harness Rules could not be given to a dependent of a daily wager. In my opinion the stand adopted by the respondents is patently erroneous.;