Ajai Lamba - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent State. I have referred to the documents available on the file, in context of the relevant rule and the case law.
(2.) Ramesh Pratap Yadav has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioner as a regular employee with effect from his initial appointment.
(3.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is the admitted case that father of the petitioner late Ram Kumar Yadav was serving on work charge basis in Public Works Department. Ram Kumar Yadav died on 29.8.2002. The petitioner moved an application to seek appointment on compassionate ground under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (For short 'Dying in Harness Rules') but his request was not favourably considered. Resultantly, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 3516 (S/S) of 2003. This Court passed order dated 1.7.2003 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner vide a speaking order. It has been pleaded in para 3 that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment in pursuance to the order on compassionate grounds under Dying in Harness Rules, however on daily wage basis. It has been pleaded that since then the petitioner is serving as a daily wager.;