Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17605 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3315 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shyamji Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Agri. Marketing And Agri. Foreign Trade Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4, the same is taken on record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and appoint the petitioner on a suitable post under U.P. Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, at an early date." 3. At the very outset, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 has stated that the present petitioner is nephew of the deceased employee and the nephew is not covered within the definition of family or the dependent, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner may not be considered as per law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner is dependent upon the deceased employee and the deceased employee has executed one Will-deed in favour of the present petitioner providing the entire moveable and immovable property to him, therefore, the direction may be issued for providing appropriate appointment to the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules. 5. On that, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 has stated that only on the basis of a Will-deed the present petitioner, who is nephew of the deceased employee, may not claim any appropriate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules inasmuch as the nephew does not come within the purview of family or the dependent of the deceased under the rules. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find substance on the submission of Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 that the nephew does not come within the definition of the family or the dependent, therefore, no direction can be issued in his favour for providing him appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench