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
6 paragraphs · 235 wordsD.K. Trivedi, J.
By means of this petition the petitioner prays for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of ClassIV Employee under Dying in Harness Rules.
It is submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the petitioner''s father was employed & he died in 1977 during service, the petitioner at that time was minor & now when he become major, then he moved an application for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.
The main object of the Rules of Dying in Harness is to provide immediate relief to the family of the Govt. employee who died during the service. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the petitioner''s father died in 1977 and therefore after lapse of so many years, it cannot be said that the petitioner can claim any benefit under Dying in Harness Rules. In similar circumstances in a case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar & another reported in (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 301 the Hon''ble Supreme Court took a view that if the above mentioned contention is accepted then it amounts to another mode of recruitment and therefore, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after attaining the age of majority.
In these circumstances the present writ petition is misconceived & is hereby dismissed.
(Petition dismissed.)