CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Avinash Srivastava vs State of U.P. and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 January 2009 · Citation: (2009) 01 AHC CK 0111

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying-In-Harness) Rules, 1974 — Rule 5
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7275 (SS) of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 348 words

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 DyinginHarness Rules, which has been rejected.

3.

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 DyinginHarness 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 DyinginHarness Rules.

4.

It is relevant to mention here that by means of The Utter Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999, Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants Government Servants DyinginHarness 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 DyinginHarness 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.

5.

In view of above, the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of The Utter Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999, ignoring the order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure 11), within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

6.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Decided accordingly.