The court upheld the validity of the termination of a temporary government servant's service under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975 and clarified the eligibility for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Pratyush Kumar,J.

Special Appeal No. 526 of 2014 has been filed by Smt. Suman Shukla assailing the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3064 (S/S) of 1996 (Anoop Kumar Shukla since deceased through his legal representaive Vs. State of U.P. and others), Special Appeal No. 529 of 2014, filed by Smt. Suman Shukla, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 5876 (S/S) of 2008 (Smt. Suman Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others)

2. Both the Special Appeals have a common factual matrix, therefore, we are disposing of these appeals by a common judgment and order.

3. Anoop Kumar Shukla husband of Smt. Suman Shukla filed writ petition No. 3064 (S/S) of 1996 praying therein to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29th May, 1996 passed by the Respondent No.5 whereby his service as temporary Lekhpal was terminated and further for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow him to continue his service as Lekhpal and pay him admissible wages. Main grounds of the writ petition are that Anoop Kumar Shukla (since deceased) was duly qualified to be Lekhpal. His service was regulated under the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. He joined his service on 15th January, 1996 and worked upto April, 1996. Without providing opportunity of hearing by the impugned order his service was terminated though persons qualifying after him are continuing in service.

4. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit was filed whereby averments made in the writ petition were denied and it has been stated that Anoop Kumar Shukla on the basis of forged certificate got the appointment, when verified that his certificate was found forged. After paying him one month's salary his temporary service was terminated.

5. Under interim order dated 11th June, 1996 Anoop Kumar Shukla continued to work as Lekhpal and during the pendency of the writ petition he died on 22nd August, 2007. After his death Smt. Shuman Shukla got herself substituted as legal representative and after hearing the arguments by the impugned judgment and order writ petition was dismissed. In the impugned judgment it has been held that termination order is exfacie termination simplicitor. It has been further held that subsequent averments made in the counter affidavit would not make the impugned termination order stigmatic. Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Suman Shukla has filed Special Appeal No. 526 of 2014.

6. The other Writ Petition No. 5876 (S/S) of 2008 has been filed by Smt. Suman Shukla seeking her appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as ''Dying-in-Harness Rules' on the ground that her husband Anoop Kumar Shukla died while he was in service.

7. On behalf of the respondents counter affidavit was filed whereby averments made in the supporting affidavit were denied and it has been stated that Late Anoop Kumar Shukla on the basis of forged Lekhpal training certificate procured appointment. His temporary service was terminated under the the U.P. Temporary Government Servants Rules, Termination of Service 1976. He was working under the interim order passed by this Court. No right has accrued to the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. On behalf of the petitioner a rejoinder affidavit was filed. After hearing counsel for the parties by the impugned judgment and order writ petition was dismissed for the reason that order of termination dated 29th May, 1996 has been upheld by this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3064 (S/S) of 1996. In this light he could not be said to be died in harness entitling the petitioner to claim a compassionate appointment.

8. Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted in support of the grounds taken in Special Appeal No. 526 of 2014 that in the impugned judgment it has not been considered that the person