# Amarsen & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 716
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 27163 of 2016
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amarsen-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45510
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921: Section
16-G - Regulations framed under the Act of
1921: Chapter III Regulation 101 - The
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971
- Once a Government Order which serves as
a basis to refuse financial approval is
struck down by this Court as ultra vires, the
position as it stood prior to those invalidated
Government Orders/amendments, revives.
(Para 24)

Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground to extend benefit of old pension
scheme
notwithstanding
the
clear
stipulation in the pension rule specifying
date of entry in service to be determinative
of the pension scheme.

31. Writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.10.2020

Ranjeet Sahu/Ani"

10. In the present case also no case of
arbitrariness and discrimination had been made
out on the lines noticed hereinabove in other
cases. It is not a case of persons similarly
situated in the same selection having been
discriminated. It is not a case where selectees of
a subsequent advertisement were appointed
under the Old Pension Scheme while the
selection of petitioners was kept pending nor is
it a case where any discrimination had been
made in this regard.

11. One of the glaring facts is that after
issuance of advertisement the petitioner never
approached this Court seeking any remedy for
expeditious selection and appointment. Even
after 2006 they readily accepted their
appointment without demunr, meaning thereby,
they also accepted the conditions of service
applicable including the new post retirement
scheme and the fact that the Old Pension
Scheme became unavailable to them w.e.f.
01.04.2005
as
their
appointment
was
subsequent to it.

12. As observed by the co-ordinate
Bench merely because a person has
participated in a selection that by itself does
not give any right to appointment nor to
any benefits accruing therefrom. The fact is
that petitioners were appointed in 2006 and
not prior to 01.04.2005.

13. Now, after 14 years for the
petitioners to come to this Court saying that
they should be given the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme is rather belated apart
from being impermssible.

14. The plea that the petitioners were
absolutely unaware about the conditions of
service is hardly acceptable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Ignorance is no
excuse in law. Necessary deductions must
have been made from their monthly salary
under the New Pension Scheme which
would make them fully aware as to what
are the dues admissible and payable to
them after retirement. Moreover, any
conscious and prudent person would
inquire
about
the
service
and
post
retirement benefits which they would be
entitled to once they enter into service or
within a reasonable period of such
entrance.

15. Any plea based on Shankarsan
Das (supra) had to be raised at the
appropriate time which was never done.

16. In view of the above, the case at
hand is squarely covered by the decision
dated 13.10.2020 rendered in the case of
Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) and there is no
reason for this Court, in the facts of the
present case, to take a view different from
what has already taken by a co-ordinate
Bench.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A716
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
12 All. Amarsen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
717
Writ A No. 27163 of 2016

Amarsen & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rishu Mishra, Sri Deepak Kumar
Tripathi, Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, Sri Uma
Kant Mishra, Sri H.R. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Kumar

A. Service Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921: Section
16-G - Regulations framed under the Act of
1921: Chapter III Regulation 101 - The
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971
- Once a Government Order which serves as
a basis to refuse financial approval is
struck down by this Court as ultra vires, the
position as it stood prior to those invalidated
Government Orders/amendments, revives.
(Para 24)

Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited: -

1. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College, Vishnu
Mandir & anr. Writ C No. 45060 of 2015

2. C/M Lala Babu Baija; Memorial Inter College
& anr. Vs State of U.P. & ors. Writ C No. 11760
of 2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Counter affidavits, one on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2 and the other on
behalf of respondent no.3 have been filed.
There is no rejoinder affidavit to either of
the two counter affidavits.

2. Admit.

3. Heard forthwith.

4. It seems that it is difficult for the
District Inspector of Schools, Basti, if not
altogether impossible, to understand that a
Government Order, once struck down by
this Court, is wiped out of existence. He
seems to think that notwithstanding the
Government Order dated 06.01.2011 being
struck down by this Court, it still survives.
It is this misconception of the District
Inspector of Schools, that has led to this
writ petition being instituted.

5. Heard Mr. H.R. Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gopal Das
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners
and
Mr.
Sharad
Chandra
Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer
appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1
and 2. No one appears on behalf of
respondent no.3, though the name of Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the said respondent, is shown
in the cause list.

6. Amarsen and Krishna Kumar
Verma, who are the first and the second
petitioners in that order, have been
appointed as peons with Shri Deshraj
Narang Dayanand Inter College, Govind
Nagar, Walterganj, District Basti (for short,
''the College'). Though appointed way back
in the year 2014, their appointments have
not received approval of the District
Inspector of Schools. In consequence, both
the petitioners are going without their
salary. It is this deprivation of rights for the
petitioners that has compelled them to
move this Court.

7. The College is located at Govind
Nagar in the district of Basti. It is a
recognized and aided institution. The
College is governed by the provisions of
the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 (for short, ''the Act of 1921') and
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the regulations framed thereunder. The
salaries to teachers and other employees of
the College are paid in accordance with
The Uttar Pradesh High Schools And
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment
Of
Salaries
Of
Teachers
And
Other
Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, ''the Act
of 1971').

8. Two substantive posts of peons fell
vacant. According to the reservation profile
of incumbents in the Class-IV cadre, these
posts would go to the Other Backward
Class (O.B.C.) quota. It seems that shortage
of hands had adversely affected dispatch of
work and, therefore, the College took a
decision to fill up both these posts. The
Principal of the College is the appointing
authority of employees in the Class-IV
cadre. He addressed memorandum dated
10.02.2014 with a follow up dated
19.03.2014 to the District Inspector of
Schools,
Basti,
seeking
the
latter's
permission to fill up the two vacant posts of
peons with the College under the O.B.C.
quota. It appears that no decision was taken
on the Principal's request for a permission
as aforesaid by the District Inspector of
Schools.
The
Principal
caused
an
advertisement to be published in two
dailies, to wit, Swatantra Chetna and
Dainik Prabhat issues, dated 20.06.2014,
advertising the two posts of peons,
available with the college.

9. In due course, applications were
received and a Selection Committee was
convened. The Selection Committee made
recommendations
to
the
Principal,
favouring
the
petitioners'
candidature.
Accepting those recommendations, the
Principal of the College appointed the
petitioners, issuing both of them letters of
appointment, both dated 10.07.2014. The
petitioners,
on
receipt
of
letters
of
appointment, put in their respective joining
reports in the office of the Principal on
11.07.2014. Ever since, the petitioners are
discharging their duties as peons with the
College.

10. The Principal for his part, after
going through the entire selection process,
forwarded papers pertaining to selection
and appointment of the petitioners to the
District Inspector of Schools, for his
approval. These papers for approval were
forwarded by the Principal to the District
Inspector of Schools through a forwarding
memo dated September the 2nd, 2014.

11. It is asserted on behalf of the
petitioners that the District Inspector of
Schools has received the entire papers
relating to their selection and appointment,
but he has not taken any decision for the
approval of these appointments. He has
neither approved or disapproved.

12. This writ petition, in substance,
complains about this inaction by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools.
The
petitioners' cause of action, however,
foretells the reason for the District
Inspector of Schools' inaction. In paragraph
nos.13 to 18 of the writ petition, reasons
are indicated for the complained inaction
by the District Inspector of Schools. It is
said there that the State Government had
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
06.01.2011, prohibiting appointment to
Class-IV
posts
in
aided
educational/
technical institutions. It was also provided
that
in
substitution
of
the
existing
mechanism of recruitment by the institution
in accordance with Rules, services of
Class-IV personnel required, would be
secured
through
outsourcing.
This
stipulation was carried in paragraph no.2 of
the Government Order dated 06.01.2011.
12 All. Amarsen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
719
This Government Order was put to
challenge in Writ - C No.11760 of 2011 and
a host of other petitions. All the writ
petitions were consolidated, heard together
and decided by a common judgment and
order dated 21.03.2012. Writ - C No.11760
of 2011 was decided as the leading petition.

13. This Court, by its judgment and
order dated 21.03.2012 rendered in Writ - C
No.11760 of 2011, allowed the writ
petitions and struck down paragraph no.2
of the Government Order dated 06.01.2011.
A special appeal, from the judgment and
order dated 21.03.2012, was carried by the
State, being Special Appeal No.1023 (D) of
2012, but no interim order was granted
there. It is then pleaded that in order to
override and undo the effect of the
judgment and order dated 21.03.2012, the
State Government issued a Government
Order
dated
04.09.2013.
The
said
Government Order amends Regulation 101,
occurring in Chapter III of the Regulations
framed under the Act of 1921 to provide
that the District Inspector of Schools would
grant permission to the Management to fill
up posts in the clerical cadre, after securing
permission from the Director of Education
(Secondary), but would leave out from this
regime of permission, Class-IV posts. It is
further
provided
by
the
amended
Regulation that for the Class-IV vacancies
with
an
intermediate
institution,
arrangement for hiring hands shall be made
through outsourcing.

14. The petitioners plead that the
Government Order dated 04.09.2013 has
been challenged in Writ - A No.62544 of
2013, wherein an interim order dated
08.12.2013 has been passed. Details of this
challenge in the order interim made by this
Court are pleaded in paragraph no.17 of the
writ petition. It is asserted that the
Principals of the Intermediate Colleges and
High Schools are still empowered to make
selection and appointment of Class-IV
Employees under the existing system.

15. It may be remarked that the
interim order passed in Writ - A No.62544
of 2013 had stayed the operation of the
order
dated
04.09.2013,
amending
Regulation 101 and further ordered that no
recruitment, by way of outsourcing, shall
be made. It was also provided that further
recruitment shall be made according to the
process existing prior to the amendment,
which shall remain in force. It is this part of
the interim order passed by this Court on
18.12.2013 in Writ - A No.62544 of 2013
that has inspired the petitioners to plead the
way they have done in paragraph no.18 of
the writ petition.

16. During the course of hearing, Mr.
H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners points out that
the challenge to the Government Order
dated 04.09.2013, amending Regulation
101, came up for hearing before a Division
Bench of this Court along with a group of
other writ petitions, involving the same
question. The Division Bench proceeded to
hear Writ - C No.45060 of 2015, Principal,
Abhay Nandan Inter College, Vishnu
Mandir & anr. as the leading case. Their
Lordships, by the judgment and order dated
19.11.2018 rendered in Writ - A No.45060
of 2015 (supra) and connected matters,
have
held
Regulation
101
of
the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921,
as amended vide Government Order dated
04.09.2013 ultra vires and struck down the
same insofar it provided that vacancies of
Class-IV in Intermediate Institutions, shall
be
filled
up
by
an
''outsourcing'
arrangement. By the said judgment, the
Educational Authorities have been ordered
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to
consider
the
matter
of
pending
appointments and pass orders in accordance
with law. A copy of the judgment of the
Division Bench in Writ - C No.45060 of
2015 (supra) was placed before the Court
by Mr. Mishra, during the course of the
hearing. This Court has perused the same.

17. The stand of the State, represented
by the Secretary, Secondary Education,
Government of U.P. and the District
Inspector of Schools, Basti, who have filed
a joint counter affidavit, is encapsuled in
paragraph no.3, which reads:

"B. That the Principal, Sri Deshraj
Narang Dayanand Inter College Walterganj,
Basti vide his letters dated 10.2.2014 and
19.3.2014 requested from the District
Inspector of Schools, Basti to give
permission for filling the two vacant posts
of Peon under the OBC category. It is
stated that in the institution in question,
there are 15 posts of Class IV employees
are sanctioned. Against which, 6 peons of
General Category, 3 peons of OBC
category and 4 peons of Scheduled Caste
Category are working in the institution.
Thereafter, the State Government vide
government orders dated 6.1.2011 and
15.3.2012 imposed ban on appointment on
the Class IV posts. Even the ban imposed
by the State Government vide government
orders dated 6.1.2011 and 15.3.2012, the
Principal of the institution shown the
appointment of Sri Amarsen and Sri
Krishna Kumar Verma on the post of Peon.
In view of the aforesaid government orders,
the appointment made by the Principal of
the institution is illegal and null and void
and the petitioners are not entitled for any
benefit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the
petitioners have filed the present writ
petition before this Hon'ble Court, which is
liable to be dismissed with costs."

18. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no.3 as well, but
there is no stand there, contesting the
petitioners' claim.

19. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay,
learned State Law Officer has argued in
tandem with the State's stand that in view
of the Government Order dated 06.01.2011
and
the
subsequent
amendment
to
Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921,
there is no scope left for a Class-IV
employee
to
be
appointed
by
any
intermediate
institution
on
the
posts
sanctioned in their establishment. He
submits that under the new regime against
the
sanctioned
posts
of
Class-IV
employees, hands have to be hired through
outsourcing. It is submitted by Mr.
Upadhyay further that striking down of the
Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and
the subsequent Government Order dated
04.09.2013,
effecting
amendment
to
Regulation 101 (supra) cannot affect the
State's right to stand by its policies,
embodied
in
those
amendments.
He
submits that since the State has to bear
costs of employing personnel appointed to
aided private educational institutions, the
Authorities cannot be compelled to pay
employees, recruited to posts, where the
State have forbidden tenure appointment on
the sanctioned posts.

20. This Court has keenly considered
the submissions made and perused the
record. Class-IV posts, in an intermediate
institution, are governed by Section 16-G
of the Act of 1921, like other posts in such
an institution. Regulations providing for
conditions of service are framed in exercise
of delegated powers. Regulations, in fact,
have been framed relating to service
conditions, both of Class-III and Class-IV
12 All. Amarsen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
721
employees, of which Regulation 101 is a
part. Amendment made to Regulation 101,
as regards condition of service, has been
upheld by this Court as a valid exercise of
legislative
powers
by
the
State
Government, but the part of paragraph no.2
of the amendment, that provides for
engagement of hands against existing
Class-IV posts through outsourcing, has
been held to be ultra vires the powers of the
State Government. This is so because that
part of the amendment is no part of
conditions of service of a Class-IV
employee. It is simply an impingement or
restraint on the powers of the Management
to appoint against a sanctioned post.

21. The amended part of the
Regulation 101, forbidding appointment of
regular staff against sanctioned posts of
Class-IV alone, has also been held to be
discriminatory by this Court. In Principal,
Abhay
Nandan
Inter
College,
the
amendment forbidding appointment by an
intermediate institution to a sanctioned
Class-IV post and instead introducing a
regime, where hands have to be engaged
through outsourcing, has been held ultra
vires the powers of the State Government
and
the
Government
Order
dated
04.09.2013 to that extent has been struck
down. The relevant part of amended
Regulation 101 has, a fortiori, also been
struck down as ultra vires. Likewise,
paragraph 2 of the earlier Government Order
dated 06.01.2020, on the strength of which
the respondents seek to resist the petitioners'
claim for a financial approval to their
appointment by the District Inspector of
Schools, has also been struck down by this
Court in Writ - C No.11760 of 2011, C/M
Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and
another vs. State of U.P. and others, decided
on 21.03.212. In C/M Lala Babu Baijal
Memorial Inter College, it has been held:

"64. In my view, therefore, though the
concept of making available the staff to
perform Class-IV job by outside agency
though termed "Outsourcing" but it is
nothing but a system of supply of work
force through a contractor or a person who
satisfy the term "contractor" for all
purposes though termed as "outsourcing".
Hence the system as contemplated in Para 2
of impugned G.O. is evidently exploitative,
arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, illogical,
hence violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution."

22. In C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial
Inter College, the following order was
passed:

"68. In the result, following writ
petitions are decided in the following
manner:

(A) The Writ Petitions No. 11670 of
2011, 27387 of 2011, 27388 of 2011, 45111
of 2011, 33140 of 2011, 64630 of 2011,
68199 of 2011, 68591 of 2011, 68592 of
2011, 62476 of 2011, 63197 of 2011 and
1432 of 2012 are allowed to the extent that
Para 2 of G.O. dated 06.01.2011 is struck
down in its application to Secondary
Educational Institutions recognised by the
Board and governed by provisions of Act,
1921
and
the
Regulations
framed
thereunder,
being
illegal,
arbitrary,
unconstitutional and ultra vires.

(B) Writ Petitions No. 62616 of 2011,
50905 of 2011, 8492 of 2012, 49269 of
2011, 63653 of 2011, 67140 of 2011, 61539
of 2011, 62465 of 2011, 631 of 2012 and
74197 of 2011 are allowed to the extent
that orders impugned passed by State
Government/educational
authorities,
pursuant to Para 2 of G.O. dated
06.01.2011, which has already been struck
down, as above, are hereby set aside. They
are directed to pass fresh order in
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made above.

(C) The Educational Authorities are
also directed not to obstruct the process of
selection and appointment on Class-IV
posts in Secondary Educational Institutions
only on the basis of Para 2 of G.O. dated
06.01.2011.

69. The Writ Petition No. 45708 of
2011 is disposed of directing the competent
educational authorities to pass appropriate
order on the matter of approval on
selections made in educational institutions
concerned for appointment on Class-IV
posts expeditiously and in any case within a
period of one month from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order."

23. It has not been brought to this
Court's notice that the decisions in
Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College and
C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter
College have not been set aside or stayed
by the Supreme Court. It is also not the
respondents' case that some Government
Order or amendment has been issued that
may, in effect, reintroduce the regime
envisaged under the Government Order
dated 06.01.2011 or Regulation 101, as
amended vide Government Order dated
04.09.2013, to the extent these Government
Orders/ amended Regulations have been
struck down by this Court in Principal,
Abhay Nandan Inter College and C/M Lala
Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College.

24. The contention put forth by Mr.
Upadhyay
that
notwithstanding
the
Government Orders/ amendments being
struck down, it is the State's policy to hire
hands to Class-IV posts in private aided
institutions, who cannot, therefore, appoint
employees against sanctioned posts in their
establishment,
is
hollow,
if
not
preposterous. Once a Government Order or
more so an amendment effected through a
Government Order to statutory regulations,
that serves as the basis to refuse financial
approval, is struck down by this Court as
ultra vires, the position as it stood prior to
those invalidated Government Orders/
amendments, revives. Under Regulation
101, occurring in Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1921,
the position that obtains for the present is
that a private and aided intermediate
institution, governed by the Act of 1921
and Act of 1971, is entitled to appoint
Class-IV employees against sanctioned
post; and if such employees have been
appointed in accordance with law, the
competent Authority is bound to grant
financial approval to their appointment.

25. Here, the petitioners' claim to
grant a financial approval is substantially
resisted by respondent nos.1 and 2 on
ground
that
it
is
contrary
to
the
Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and
some other Order dated 15.03.2012. That
Government Order and the subsequent
Government
Order
dated
04.09.2013
effecting certain amendment to Regulation
101 (supra) being struck down, the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Basti
or
any
Authority of the State superior to him and
competent, cannot refuse financial approval
to the petitioners, on the strength of
provisions and Government Orders, that
stand effaced by judgments of this Court.

26. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed in part. A
mandamus is issued to the District
Inspector of Schools, Basti ordering him to
consider and decide the petitioners' case for
grant of financial approval to their
respective
appointment
as
Class-IV
employees with the College, strictly in
12 All. Dhirendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
723
accordance with law, after hearing the
petitioners within a period of one month of
date of receipt of copy of this order. Costs
easy.

27. Let this order be communicated to
the District Inspector of Schools, Basti by
the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within a
week.
----------
(2020)12ILR A723
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 31032 of 2015

Dhirendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Vats, Sri Bhupesh Kumar Singh,
Sri Hare Ram Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Q.H. Siddiqui, Sri Rajesh Kumar
Dubey, Saiful Islam Siddiqui, Sri Vimlesh
Kumar Rai

A. Service Law-Compassionate Appointment
- The U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974 - In case there is a rival claim to
compassionate appointment under the Rules,
the Head of Office shall decide about the
suitability of that person for employment. It
also stipulates that the decision will be one
that bears in mind the overall welfare of the
entire family, particularly, the widow and the
minor dependents. (Para 10)

The decision about the fact as to which
dependent of the deceased would be best
known to the widow's interest, can reasonably
be expected to be best known to the widow
herself. Apart from the widow, the other two
dependents also expressed their choice in
favour of the fifth respondent against the
petitioner. Further, the widow sworn in an
affidavit that the petitioner is a man with
criminal antecedents which shows that she does
not trust him to take care of the family
therefore the Superintending Engineer rightly
exercised his power under the Rules of 1974 to
accept the fifth respondent's claim and reject
that of the petitioner. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

Writ Petition rejected. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has emerged from a
conflict
of
claims
to
compassionate
appointment between the two sons of the late
Mishri Lal, a Government servant, who died
in harness. Late Mishri Lal was a chowkidar
in the Establishment of the Construction Unit,
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Power House Road,
102/1017, Kasturi Niwas, Mohammadipur,
Gorakhpur. The deceased was a permanent
employee. Mishri Lal died in harness on
03.05.2014, leaving behind him, his widow
Smt. Vidya Devi and four sons, all adults, to
wit, Ashok Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar,
Brijesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar. The two
sons of the late Mishri Lal, who have staked
rival claims to compassionate appointment
under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants Dyingin-Harness Rules, 19741 are the petitioner,
Dhirendra Kumar, on the one hand, and the
fifth respondent, Brijesh Kumar, on the other.

2. It is the petitioner's case that he is
the eldest son of the deceased. He applied
under the Rules of 1974 on 27.05.2014. It
is the petitioner's case that his mother, Smt.
Vidya Devi, tendered an affidavit dated
27.05.2014, indicating her willingness for a
compassionate appointment in favour of the
petitioner, in place of her deceased
husband. A copy of the affidavit dated