Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Special Appeal No. 1470 of 2007(Sushil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others) and Special Appeal No. 1557 of 2007(Smt. Saroja Pandey v. The State Of U.P. and others) which are before us for consideration, have been filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge by which Civil Misc.Writ Petition Nos. 28050 of 2006 and 29029 of 2004 were decided together and both the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.

2. The appellants are son and mother respectively.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant of Special Appeal No. 1470 of 2007 Sushil Kumar Pandey was appointed on compassionate ground on assuming the civil death of his father, namely, Jyoti Bhushan Pandey, who was working in temporary capacity as Seechpal in the Irrigation Department and was reported not to have been seen or heard of from 1.8.1981. The said appointment was granted to the appellant Sushil Kumar Pandey upon his attaining the age of majority on 30.11.1994. On 22.12.2004 the appellant was served with a show cause notice that why his services should not be terminated as per the terms of appointment letter on the ground that his father did not dis appear in the year 1981 as alleged by the appellant but he himself abandoned his temporary service which after notice dated 6.4.1983 and 20.4.1983 led to his termination vide order dated 7.6.1983. Further in response to the said termination he had sent his representation which was received in the office on 10.6.1983 stating therein his inability to perform his official duties due to physical and domestic reasons. Therefore, the very appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground is invalid. The appellant submitted his reply to the said notice and thereafter his services was terminated vide order dated 25.4.2006 which was challenged before the Writ Court which rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this special appeal.

4. The appellant of Special Appeal No. 1557 of 2007 Smt. Saroj Pandey is the mother of Sushil Kumar Pandey and widow of Jyoti Bhushan Pandey. She filed the writ petition on the ground that her claim for family pension after presumed/civil death of her husband has been rejected by the authority concerned on the ground that the story regarding the legal death of her husband was untrue and in fact Jyoti Bhushan Pandey was temporary employee and was terminated from service and, therefore, there was no question of grant of family pension which was in fact claimed after an inordinate delay, that is to say, after more than 10 years, i.e., in the year 2004.

5. We have heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-authorities and have perused the ground of appeal mentioned in the memo of appeal alongwith the annexures filed therein.

6. The case set up by both the appellants is that the father and husband of the appellants’ respectively was a permanent employee in the Irrigation Department holding the post of Seenchpal. The appellants claimed that from 1.8.1981 Jyoti Bhushan Pandey was neither seen nor heard of by them and in accordance with Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act after lapse of 7 years he was presumed dead and upon the son attaining the age of majority applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of U.P. Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules) and was given appointment in the year 1994. It seems that Smt. Saroj Pandey the wife of Jyoti Bhushan Pandey suddenly woke up and decided to put forward a claim for family pension etc. on the ground of the alleged legal death of her husband Jyoti Bhushan Pandey.

7. According to the respondents, upon such an application being made in the year 2004 the records were dug out which revealed that the story made up by both the appellants was false, inasm