The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of dependents of deceased government servants to be considered for employment on compassionate grounds under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, and the discriminatory nature of rejecting such claims.

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 30. 3. 1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby the General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan, Kanpur, has rejected the application of petitioner for getting employment on compassionate ground under the "u. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974" (in short called as Dying-in-Harness Rules ).

( 2 ) HEARD Mrs. Duga Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and non-appears for the respondent.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition is of the year 1994, therefore, a detailed order dated 16. 5. 2003 was passed, whereby the General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan was issued a fresh notice in addition to dasti to give the response by next date of hearing. However, no response has been given by the respondent, therefore, the writ petition is decided on the available documents after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Late Sri Chandra Shekhar Mishra, the husband of the petitioner, the only bread earner of his family, died on 5. 9. 1993, while working as a daily wager for about 11 years leaving behind him three daughters and one son aged about 17 years, 15 years, 5 years and 13 years, respectively and his old parents. Immediately, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 8. 9. 1993, which was forwarded for consideration and the same was rejected on 30. 3. 1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by the General Manager, Kanpur Jal Sansthan by saying that the dependants or family members of the person, who had died while working as a daily wager cannot be given employment. The petitioner has also referred in Para 6 of the writ petition that the husband of Smt. Gyanwati was deployed in the year 1985, as a daily wager in jal Sansthan, Kanpur and had died after being deployed as a daily wager on 27. 1. 1990 and on the representation of Smt. Gyanwati, she was employed primarily on 4. 9. 1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) initially for two months on daily wages after obtaining the reports from the office of General Manager and taking the reference of precedence of previous deployment given to the other dependants of the deceased employees against available vacancies. It was also noted in the annexure-4 enclosed with the writ petition that on many previous occasions the General manager of Kanpur Jal Sansthan has given employment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules to the dependants of the employees, who died-in-harness while serving as a daily wager, and service of smt. Gyanwati was extended and she was kept in regular employment thereafter in place of her deceased husband. According to the petitioner her claim is more superior to Smt. Gyanwati and in view of Rule 2-A of Dying-in-Harness Rules, she has to be given employment on compassionate ground in place of her husband. According to the petitioner the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is in derogation to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and is discriminatory and is in derogation to the precedence and in derogation to the rule 2 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she is entitled to be given employment in reference to the decision of this Court 2001 (4) ESC (All), Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of u. P. and Ors. and in reference to (2000) 1 UPLBEC (Sum.) 15; Saroj Devi (Smt.) v. State of u. P. and Ors. and in reference to 1998 (79) FLR 608, Smt. Maya Devi v. Slate of U. P. and Ors. .

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the vacancies are still available and the petitioners grievance and poor financial condition is still persisting, therefore, petitioners case is extremely genuine to be considered in the light of the above mentioned decisions of the Court.

( 7 ) IN Santosh Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court referring the case of Raj Narain Prasad and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1998) 8 S