RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he had moved an application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, which has been rejected. It has been stated by the Counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, who was in Government Service, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service during the year 2000. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, who was appointed as House Keeper under the opposite parties, died on 19.4.2003 during in service. After the death of his mother, he moved an application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, which has been rejected inter alia on the grounds that since his father was in Government Service, he is not entitled for appointment under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules.
(3.) IT is relevant to mention here that by means of The Utter Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999, Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 has been amended, wherein it has been provided that in case a Government Servant dies and the spouse of the deceased is not already employed, one member of his family, who is not already employed, be given a suitable employment in Government Service. Since the petitioner is claiming the appointment against a post on which his mother was working and she died while in service, his case has to be considered under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules. Further his father has already retried in 2000 and as such ground for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment is untenable vide impugned order.;