Hon’ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.—These are two writ petitions, one filed by Sri Shivanshu Misra and other, by Sri Dheeraj Mishra. Sri Shivanshu Misra has filed writ petition challenging the order dated 14.8.2015 and 14.9.2015 whereby his appointment made under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short Dying-in-Harness Rules) has been set aside by the O.P. No. 2, Director, Panchayat Raj, U.P., Lucknow and his representation is also rejected by the O.P. No. 2.

Writ Petition No. 1684 (S/S) of 2015 is filed by Sri Dhiraj Mishra for considering his representation for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and also for quashing the order of appointment under Dying in Harness Rules earlier issued in favour of Sri Suivanshu Misra.

2. Facts of the case are that late Sri Chhatrapal Mishra was working as permanent Panchayat Inspector (Udyog) in Panchayat Raj department. He died in harness leaving behind following legal heirs :

1. Smt. Shanti Dev aged about 44 years (wife)

2. Dhiraj Mishra, aged about 30 years (son)

3. Vinod Mishra, aged about 28 years (son)

4. Punit Kumar Mishra, aged about 28 years (son)

3. Sri Dhiraj Mishra moved an application for appointment under the 1974 Rules. Such an application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules was also moved by his mother Smt. Shanti Devi. The said matter was not decided. It appears that Sri Chhatrapal Mishra, while having his first wife alive, was also having a second wife namely, Smt. Sarita and Sri Shivanshu Misra is son of deceased employee from Smt. Sarita. It further appears that District Panchyayat Raj Adhikari by his order dated 6.1.2015 gave appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules to Sri Shivanshu Misra. Representations were made before the authorities against the said appointment and the Director Panchayat Raj by the impugned orders have cancelled the said appointment. While cancelling the said appointment, the Director Panchayat Raj has referred to the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The reason given for cancelling appointment is that, since the second marriage of late Chhatrapal Misra was illegal, hence Sri Shivanshu Misra could not have been appointed and it was Sri Dhiraj Mishra who was entitled to be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties in both the writ petitions and have gone through the records with the assistance at length.

5. Learned counsel for Sri Shivanshu Misra has strongly placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and others v. K. Devi and others, (1996) 4 SCC 76, paragraphs 83 and 84 which read as under :

“83. In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16, the illegitimate Children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.

84. Obviously, appellants 2 to 6 were born prior to the date on which amendments were introduced in Section 16(1), and consequently they would, notwithstanding that the marriage between their parents had taken place at a time when there was a legislation prohibition on the second marriage, be treated as legitimate, and would, therefore, inherit the properties of their father, Raman Nair, under Section 16(3) of the Act.”

Reliance is further placed in the case of Bakulabi and another v. Gangaram and another, (1988) 1 SCC 537, paragrpah-7 of the judgment which reads as under :

“7. The other findings of the Magistrate on the disputed question of fact were recorded after a full consideration of the evidence an should have been left undisturbed in revision. No error of law appears to have been discovered in his judgment and so the revi