JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recruit the petitioner in a suitable vacancy at the place of his father late Shri Ram Dularey Lal Srivastava, U.D.A. Section Administrative B, Allahabad High Court in view of the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1974). It has also been prayed that, that part of the Rules, 1974 be declared as null and void which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the pesent writ petition are that the petitioner's father late Sri Ram Dularey Lal Srivastava died on 8th August, 1973. At the time of his death he was employed in the High Court at Allahabad as U.D.A. in Section Administrative -B. According to the petitioner he is the only son of late Shri Ram Dularey Lal Sivastava and he was minor at the time of the death of his father. It has also been stated that the petitioner's mother Smt. Chandra Kal Devi is getting family pension of Rs. 331/- per month. The petitioner has obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the Kanpur University in the year 1983. On 9th September, 1985 the petitioner made an application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court praying to give him employment at the place of his father or in any other suitable vacancy in view of the Rules, 1974. Another application was given on 21st January, 1987 followed by another on 7th March 1987. It appears that the petitioner has also represented his case to the Union Government and the Registrar of this Court vide his letter dated 2nd May 1987 intimated that the representation of Shri Harvansh Sahai Srivastava was considered by the Court and that since the case was not covered by the provisions of Rules, 1974 he could not be given appointment and his representation had thus been rejected. A copy of the said letter has been filed along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent as C.A.I.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has in the present writ petition urged that Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974 in so far as it states that "in case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these Rules" is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is ultra vires as it discriminates between dependents of the Government servants who died after the commencement of the Rules and those who died before the commencement of the Rules and the aforesaid classification is not based on any intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the provisions of Rule 5 and the object sought for by the Rules 1974.
4. The Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government has, however, urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as the application for seeking employment under the Rules has been made after about nine years of his father's death.
5. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh regulating the recruitment of dependents of Government Servants dying harness. A bare perusal of the Rules would show that the intention in framing the Rules was to provide relief to the family of a person who died in harness and who requires help so that the family of the deceased after losing the bread earner may sustain itself. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules runs as follows: -
"5. Recruitment of a member of the Family of the deceased:
In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these Rules, one member of his family who is not already employed in the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. Such employment should be given without delay, and as far as possible in the same Department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death."
Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules provides:-
"7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment :
If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest and the welfare of the entire family particularly the widow and the minor members thereof."
At this juncture it may also be mentioned that on 22nd June, 1984, a Government Order has been issued by the State Government for the proper implementation of the rules and all the Head of Departments have been directed that in case of the death of the employee in harness it will be the personal responsibility of the local/regional/Head of the department level officers to ensure whether the benefit of the Rules is required by the family of the deceased. In case of necessity the dependents would be informed about the provisions of the Rules and applications of suitable candidates wilt be obtained. It has also been provided that in case of such an application having been received from the dependent of the deceased the same shall be forwarded to the concerned higher officer within a period of 30 days.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that the cause of action in the case of the petitioner arose when he became major and obtained the Bachelor of Arts degree for being appointed on a Government post. We are, however, of the opinion that the cause of action would arise on the death of the person who died in harness. The clear intention of the Rules is to provide assistance to the family of the deceased who was a Government servant and has died in harness. It is at that time that the help is required by the family. By no stretch of imagination it ] can be said that after more than 9 years of the death of the Government servant the dependents can seek benefit of the Rules. May be that in certain cases there may be no eligible member who can seek employment. Even the rules pro- : vide that employment has not to be offered to every one. The dependents will have to fulfil certain qualifications so that they can discharge the duty assigned to them. In any view of the matter the mother of the petitioner could seek ; employment under the Rules. Employment has been offered to the widows of the deceased employees under the Rules by the State Government in case there are no children left by the deceased or the children are not qualified to seek ; employment under the rules.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the petitioner, having moved application for employment after more than 9 years of the date of the death of his father is not entitled to any relief from this court in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, we have not gone into the question as to whether the rules are discriminatory as the question now in our opinion is of acadamic importance.
9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.