The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 06.07.2020 passed by respondent no.2 which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that deceased father of the petitioner namely Shri Ram Sahay Lal Srivastava was initially appointed as Registration Clerk in the year 1986 and was regularized vide order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure - 2). It is submitted that services of the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure - RA 1) w.e.f. 01.03.2013.
Learned counsel has submitted that in pursuance of both the orders i.e. regularisation and confirmation, services of the petitioner's father was reguralised. It is submitted that father of the petitioner died on 30.05.2017 during service.
Learned counsel has submitted that regularisation of petitioner's father has never been challenged before any Court of law and the case which has been referred in the impugned order while rejecting representation of the petitioner, pertains to other employees and also the same has been filed after death of father of the petitioner. It is also submitted that no order for staying the operation of regularization as well as confirmation order, has been passed till date by any Court of law. In such circumstances, rejecting the representation of the petitioner by which appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 was sought, is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed without taking into consideration the correct facts and law applicable in the instant case. The impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and after inviting attention of the Court towards Para - 11 of the counter affidavit has submitted that since the regularization of petitioner's father and others is under challenge in Writ Petition No.18900 of 2019 and the matter is still pending before the Court, petitioner's case for appointment under dying in harness rules may be considered after final outcome of the said petition.
Learned counsel has submitted that after final outcome of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner can make another representation and the same may be considered in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition is premature and be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 06.07.2020 (supra) as also regularization order 25.02.2011 and service confirmation order dated 28.09.2015 (supra) clearly reveals that at the time of death in the year 2017, petitioner's father was in regular service. It is well settled that merely filing a writ petition challenging an order does not affect the operation of the said order until the said order is stayed. Therefore, right of the petitioner for appointment under dying in harness rules cannot be denied on the ground of pendency of a writ petition, especially when there is no stay order.
In view of the forgoing discussion, the instant petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.2/Inspector General, Stamp & Registration, U.P., Lucknow is hereby quashed.
Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 nishant/-