HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13382 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Since, the matter is being decided at the admission stage, the notice to opposite party no. 5 is hereby dispensed with. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.. Present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the appointment of the Opp-Party No.5 made under dying in harness category after summoning the original from the Opp-party No.2 to 4. (ii) to a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp-Party No.2 to 4 to decide the representation made by the petitioner, contained as Annexure No.22 to the writ petition." Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that that petitioner's father died on 23-10-2020 and after his death, the family settlement was done between the parties i.e. opposite party no. 5 as well as the present petitioner on 01-04-2021,wherein certain terms and conditions are fixed in between the parties. He submits that as per the settlement, the opposite party no. 5 was given appointment and the rest of the post retiral dues were given to the petitioner, which have been received by the petitioner. He submitted that there were other terms and conditions, which have not been complied with by the opposite party no. 5 and therefore, the provision of Rule 5(3) and Rule 5(4) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, would come into play and the services of respondent no. 5 could be terminated as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Piyush Pathak, Om Prakash Prajapati, Virendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh Balwant Singh .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to move a representation before the opposite party no. 2/ Chief Engineer, Vidyut Vitran, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ayodhya, and the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to consider and decide the same within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this court. Learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the same. Be that as it may, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2/Chief Engineer, Vidyut Vitran, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ayodhya within the period of 15 days from today, and if such representation is moved,the opposite party no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of six weeks, in accordance with law. The order shall be communicated by the opposite party no. 2 to the petitioner immediately. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. November 20, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 13382 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench