Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13149 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Mukund Singh,Shri Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as class-VI employee vide order datd 10.04.1992 in place of his wife under U.P. Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, who was Assistant Teacher in Primary Pithaurpur, Block Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. During the course of service petitioner was posted to Purv Madhyamik Vidyalay, Bhitkaso, Block Palhana, District Azamgarh and till the date of his retirment he worked at the same post and place upto 28.02.2018. After retirement, he was paid provident fund of Rs.4,10,000/- in February, 2019, but he has not been paid other retiral dues including pension for which he has made representation before respondent no.4 on 30.05.2019. It is next submitted that this Court in the cases of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. dated 12.02.1999, Sanjai Kumar Vs. DY Director General (NCE), Directorate dated 16.07.2002 and Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Ors dated 02.01.2008 has held that appointment made in dying in harness shall be treated as permanent appointment and be entitled for all service benefits.
For redressal of his grievance he has submitted representation dated 30.05.2019 and also send reminder, but till date no action has been taken. He submitted that direction may be issued to respondent no.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law of judgement given by this Court.
Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has disputed the aforesaid.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent no.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, maximum within six weeks. The petitioner has liberty to file a representation alongwith certified copy of this order for ventilating his grievance.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits and it is upon the respondent no.4 to decide representation of the petitioner after considering the relevant rules as well as Government Orders occupying the field.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Radhika