- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to instant writ petition is that petitioner's father had been performing and discharging duties as Seasonal Collection Peon since 15. 01. 1970 and as per petitioner he worked till 9-8- 2005, when he died in harness. Petitioner applied on 22-12-2005 for grant of compassionate appointment. Claim of petitioner had been rejected on the ground that his father was not substantively appointed employee nor had he functioned for three years continuously in regular vacancy. Counter-affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that father of the petitioner was seasonal collection peon and was not a regular employee and he has functioned with effect from 15-1- 1970 to 30-9-1981, and thereafter he was appointed on 14-3-1982 and worked till 9-8-2005. It has been contended that petitioners father was neither permanent employee nor he has been regularized and he functioned as Seasonal Collection Peon, as such under U. P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 petitioner is not at all entitled for compassionate appointment. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein reliance has been placed on the various judgments of this Court to show that petitioner's father had regularly worked on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon as such entire benefits are liable to be extended to the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. Sri J. P. N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that plea which has been taken in the counter-affidavit that claim of the petitioner is not at all liable to be considered is unsustainable, inasmuch as per Rule 2 (a) (iii) of U. P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, a government servant who has not been regularly appointed and had put in three years continuous service in regular vacancy is entitled to be offered appointment, and here each and every pre-requisite terms and conditions are duly fulfilled as such compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that petitioner's father was not substantively appointed and not regularized as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.;