D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) Father of the petitioner died on 5.6.1993. The petitioner had applied for appointment under the Dying In Harness Rules on 21.7.1993. It is alleged that this application has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for appointment under the said rules.
(2.) Mr. Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner is eligible for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, therefore, appointment should have been given to the petitioner and thus writ petition should be allowed.
(3.) However, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it appears that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 29878 of 1994, which was disposed of on 12.9.1994 with the following order : "As the matter is to be decided on facts by the respondents in accordance with law. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the writ petition. Accordingly, I direct the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-2) dated 21.7.93 by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as also a copy of the said representation before him. However, the petitioner, as prayed for, is granted liberty to file a supplementary representation along with a certified copy of this order and if such a representation is filed, the same will also be disposed of by the respondent No. 2 while disposing of the earlier representation as stated hereinabove. With this observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.";