Writ petition for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules for deceased husband was disposed pending merits. Court permitted fresh representation and ordered authorities to decide within one month.
Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation; Respondent No.3 directed to decide within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18574 of 2019
Petitioner :- Hemlata Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri P. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent no.3 namely District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly to provide appointment to the petitioner according to her qualification in place of her deceased husband under Dying-in-Harness Rules at an early date. Further prayer was made in the writ petition to direct the respondent no.3 to decide pending representation of the petitioner.
It appears from perusal of the record that the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Headmaster in Primary School, Adinapur, Block Bhuta, District Bareilly. Unfortunately he died during course of employment on 21.6.2018. After the death of husband of the petitioner, she submitted an application before the authorities for her appointment under Dying-inHarness Rules in place of her deceased husband.
It is argued that matter is still pending consideration before the authorities. In this regard representations were duly made by the petitioner from time to time. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation ventillating all his grievances before the respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.3 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is
disposed of finally.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Pramod Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules after her husband's death.
Whether the statutory authorities are liable for inaction pending consideration of her representation.
Hemlata
State Of U.P.
District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
