Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9051 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment, consequent upon death of her husband, was directed to be considered pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 17.9.2018 in Writ Petition No. 19739 of 2018. The Development Authority has consequently passed the order impugned dated 10.5.2019 rejecting petitioner's claim on the ground that a succession certificate is awaited from the Civil Court and, therefore, her application cannot be considered at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts of the present case, there is no dispute with regard to petitioner's entitlement, inasmuch as, she is the widow of deceased employee concerned. Submission is that succession certificate may be warranted for the purpose of withdrawing various deposits made in the account, but mere pendency of the matter before the Civil Court, cannot be a ground to deny consideration to the petitioner's claim.
Admittedly consideration in the facts of the present case was warranted at the level of the authority in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which apparently have been adopted by the Development Authority concerned. There is no stipulation in the rules that in the absence of a succession certificate the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered.
In an appropriate case where there is a dispute amongst the rival claimants, it may be open for the authorities to await the outcome of civil dispute, but such a course would clearly not be warranted in the facts of the present case, particularly, when the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment is the widow herself. The object for grant of compassionate appointment is otherwise to grant immediate relief to the family. It is unfortunate that such application has remained pending since 2013. Despite a direction of this Court the petitioner's claim has been deferred on a plea which is found not to be sustainable.
Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority clearly states that in such circumstances the authority shall revisit the issue.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent concerned to reconsider claim of the petitioner, in light of the observations made above, by passing a specific order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of cause, the order impugned dated 10.5.2019 stands quashed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Ranjeet Sahu