2004 (10) TMI 628

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02 (SS).        Background facts as projected by the appellants in a nutshell are as follows:        Respondent's husband was appointed as a part-time tubewell operator on 14.6.1989. While Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (in short the '1974 Rules') were in operation, in compliance with the judgment passed by this Court in some cases on 16.12.1996 Uttar Pradesh Sinchai Vibhag Mein Nalkoop Chalakon Ke Pado Par Anshalik Nalkoop Chalakon Ke Viniyamitikaran Niyamawali, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Rules') was notified and same was made applicable with effect from the date of notification. Under Sub-rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipulated time. It was observed that on the facts of the case without going into the legal merits on a humanitarian consideration, compassionate appointment should be made.         In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge that the appointment should be made during the pendency of the writ application ignoring the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 is clearly unsustainable. Division Bench of the High Court did not consider legality of the order and without going into the merits straightaway disposed of the appeal on purportedly humanitarian ground. It was submitted that the direction as given by the learned Single Judge a....