SUDHANSHU DHULIA
AJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Heard Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as “Dying in Harness Rules”). The case of the petitioner is that his father, who was a permanent employee of Government of Uttarakhand and was working as a Sweeper in the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Bageshwar, died in harness on 29th July, 2008. The deceased Kallu Ram i.e. father of the petitioner had left behind his wife Smt. Munni Devi and the petitioner. Apart from aforesaid two, another son is namely Rohit, who is minor and daughter namely Poonam. Apart from the aforesaid, the eldest son of the deceased namely Anil Kumar is living separately and he is employed. The department, however, vide order dated 6.11.2008 rejected the application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground stating that the appointment of the petitioner is not covered under Dying in Harness Rules. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present writ p
1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others (1994) 4 SCC 138.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.