In the High Court of Uttaranchal, at Nainital. Writ Petition No. 1834/2002 (S/B) 1- Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. 2- Surveyor General of India, Survey of India, Hathibarkala, Dehradun. 3- The Director, Northern Circle, Survey of India, 17 E.C. Road, Dehradun. .. Petitioners. Versus 1- Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Circuit Sitting at Nainital. 2- Pawan Deep Kumar, S/o Late Rishal Singh, R/o Mazra Road, Dehradun .. Respondents. Sri V.B.S. Negi, Addl. Solicitor General, for the petitioners. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Dated: 04-04-2006 By way of this writ petition the Union of India has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgment dated 22-10-2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No. 37 of 2002 Pawan Deep Kumar versus Union of India and others. 2- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Pawan Deep Kumar was appointed under Dying in Harness Rules on 2 compassionate ground, as the father of respondent No.2 (hereinafter called as ‘respondent’) was in service in Survey of India, who died in harness on 8-1-1999 and after the death, the respondent applied for an employment. However, all the formalities were completed before the appointment of the respondent as the respondent filled up the attestation form and submitted all his testimonials. The respondent was thereafter issued the appointment letter on 24-1-2000 and he reported his joining on 1.5.2000. 3- It reveals from the petition that some complaint against the respondent was received in the department, in which it was mentioned that the respondent was being prosecuted for criminal offences. The inquiry was held on that complaint and it was found that the respondent was prosecuted for two criminal cases. Therefore, the petitioner, i.e. the department terminated the services of the respondent by means of an order dated 31-1-2001, passed by Director, Northern Circle, Survey of India on the ground of suppression of factual information in the attestation form. 4- The respondent challenged the termination order before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the termination order vide its judgment and order dated 22-10-2002 (Annexure No.10 to this writ petition), 5- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, this writ petition has been preferred before this court. 6- The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Pawan Deep Kumar stating therein that some false cases were initiated against him in account of personal enmity and he was acquitted in all the cases by the court concerned. It has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given appointment under Dying in Harness Rules and his appointment cannot be said to be temporary in nature, therefore, his services could not have been terminated without giving him opportunity, hence the termination order passed by the department, is bad in the eye of law. 3 7- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent was a temporary employee and his services were terminated by an order of termination simplicitor. It has also been submitted that the order was innocuous and without any stigma or evil consequences visiting him. Therefore, there was no requirement under the law to hold any enquiry or afford any opportunity to the respondent, before terminating the services. 9- The sole point involved in this case is whether an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or temporary one. A catena of decisions are there on this point in which it has been held that an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case Ravi Karan Singh versus State of U.P. and others reported in [(1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263] has also held that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is not a temporary appointment and it has to be treated as permanent one. 10- In our view an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary one then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread- earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment and not a temporary one, hence the termination order of the respondent without serving a show cause notice and giving him an opportunity of hearing, cannot be said to be justified. 11- The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the termination order of the respondent is absolutely justified and does not require any interference. 4 12- The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 22-10-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be confirmed. 13- Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 22-10-2002 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) ISB