- (1.) HEARD Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THE father of the petitioner was working as Sanitary Supervisor in the Nagar Maha Palika, Lucknow. He died on 14.06.1975 while in service. At the time of his death the petitioner as well as his two brothers were minor. The petitioner after passing his intermediate examination in the year 1983 made a representation to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow on 20.02.1984 seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1975. The mother of the petitioner also made a representation on 05.05.1985 stating the hardship and praying that the petitioner be given compassionate appointment. It is alleged that thereafter numerous representations were made by the petitioner but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the inaction of the opposite parties the petitioner on 26.03.1996 filed present writ petition praying for a direction to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him on a suitable post as per his academic qualification by relaxing the normal recruitment rules under the Dying in Harness Rules and to provide other consequential benefits. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that after the death of his father the mother of the petitioner was granted family pension, which was initially Rs. 50/ - per month, and in the year 1996, it was about Rs. 700/ - per month, which is not sufficient to meet the need of the family. It is further alleged that the elder brothers of the petitioner are living separately and are not supporting the family and it is the petitioner who is looking after his widowed mother, one unmarried sister and another unemployed brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the judgment and order dated 15.02.1993 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1441 (S/S) of 1993, Mohd. Umar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. The petitioner therein was only nine year's old when his father died. The father of the petitioner therein died in November, 1972 and the Dying -in -Harness Rules came into force on 28th October, 1973. This Court held that the Dying in Harness Rules were only meant to benefit the dependents of an employee who died during the course of his employment. It was held that such type of social legislation or rule should not only be read in letters but should be read in spirit. The only object and purpose of the Rule was to provide employment to the dependent of an employee, who died in harness. This Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner of that case.;