SABHAJEET YADAV,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the case is riped for final disposal.
(2.) THE amendment application moved by the petitioner is allowed. It is stated that the petitioner is the soil of Laiji alias Mative, who was appointed as daily wager employee on the post of Beldar in the year 1984, Thereafter on 22.9.1989 he was placed in the work charge establishment of Public Works Department and permitted to work continuously as work charge employee. While working as work charge employee he died on 24.11.2003. On 22.12.2003 being only person to look after the family of the deceased employee, the petitioner moved application for his compassionate appointment under Dying -in -Harness Rules. On 24.1.2004 another application was also moved by the mother of petitioner for appointment of petitioner. Thereupon vide order dated 29.1.2004 the Executive Engineer, Constitution Division -IV, P.W.D., Allahabad rejected the claim of petitioner's compassionate appointment in view of Government Order dated 29.1.2003 holding that the compassionate appointment under dying in harness Rules is not permissible to the dependents of work charge employee of Government department. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the aforesaid Government Order has already been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 73428 of 2005 while placing reliance upon other decisions referred in the aforesaid judgment. For ready reference the pertinent observation made by this Court in aforesaid case is extracted as under: In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the impugned order dated 29th January, 2003 and the consequential order dated 20th July, 2005. be quashed and the authority be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Pushpa Lata Dixit, Santosh Kumar Mishra and Anju Mishra (supras), within six -weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 3, namely, the Chief Engineer, Public Works, Department, U.P. Lucknow. The respondent No. 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 3. The appointment if any offered to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the reference made under order dated 9th March, 2005 in case of Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra).
(3.) SIMILAR view has also been taken in several other cases, one of which is Writ Petition No. 5311 (S.S.) of 2004, Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 17.9.2004, therefore, in such a legal position, I am riot inclined to take different view in the matter. Accordingly the impugned order dated 29.1.2004 rejecting the claim of petitioner's compassionate appointment cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.;