M. KATJU AND KAMAL KISHORE, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge by his order dated 19. 12. 1997. The point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or a temporary appointment. According to the learned single Judge, this Court had earlier held that an appointment under dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment vide Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D. I. O. S. , 1993 esc 21 ; Gulab Yadau u. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (2) VPLBEC 995 and Dhirendra Pratap singh v. D. I. O. S. and others, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 427. The learned single Judge who passed the referring order dated 19. 12. 1997 disagreed with the abovementioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger Bench.

( 2 ) IN our opinion, an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment Is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment, the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying-in -Harness Rules is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules. 1975 will not apply to such appointments.

( 3 ) THE petition is disposed of accordingly.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document