JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a widow and whose husband Late Surajbali Ram was employed with the respondents as regular Class-IV employee died on 23rd May, 1999, has applied for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 before Respondent No. 1 on 15th October, 1999. The Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 1st December, 1999/4th January, 2000 informed the petitioner that his application for appointment has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on the ground that the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be made only to a person suitable for appointment. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition, the copy where of has been tagged as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition.
3. The respondents in the counter affidavit have taken a stand, as would be clear from the perusal of Paragraph 5, which says that initially the petitioner Smt. Sharda Devi filed an affidavit authorising her son-in-law with the request that he may be given appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules in place of her deceased husband and thereafter when no orders were passed upon it and no action were taken, she herself applied by means of application dated 15th October, 1999 that she may now be given appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 in place of her deceased husband which, as stated above, has been rejected by the order dated 1st December, 1999, which was later on communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 4th January, 2000. The respondents have state in the counter affidavit that it is not disputed that the petitioner is the only heir of the deceased husband, but since the petitioner has already been paid the amount of family pension, leave encashment, provident fund, insurance etc., which will conies to total of Rs. 1,37,922/-, as also prima facie several amounts mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, which the deceased would have been entitled after his retirement and therefore, the stand taken by the respondents are that taking into consideration the amounts paid or payable to the petitioner-deceased widow, it is not necessary to given her appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1597, State Bank of India and Ors. v. Rami Piyarey and Ors., wherein identical stand taken by the employer for rejecting the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, has been repelled by the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid. The Division Bench in Paragraphs 11 and 12 held, which are reproduced as below :
"11. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the receipt of family pension by the widow and a sum of Rs. 1.42 lacs paid to widow after deducting the loan cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is common knowledge that the widow is entitled to family pension and other benefits in the event her husband dies-in-harness. If the plea of the Bank is accepted then no appointment can be made on compassionate ground and the scheme of the Bank shall have no meaning. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was quite justified in allowing the writ petition.
12. Accordingly, we direct the State Bank of India to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the observations made by us and considering the financial stringency and hardship and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law for compassionate appointment within two months from the date of communication of this order. We modify the order under appeal to the extent indicated above as mentioned hereinabove. In other respect the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the special appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations."
5. The Division Bench in its decision aforesaid has issued a direction to the employer to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench and considering the financial stringency and hardship shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law for compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.
6. Considering the law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, this writ petition, for the reasons given in the aforesaid Division Bench decision with which I am bound, deserves to be allowed.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 1st December, 1999/4th January, 2000, Annexurc-2 to the writ petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the Division Bench decision in accordance with law and not to reject the same on the ground that the petitioner is entitled only for the amount, which would have been pad to the deceased husband of the petitioner, had he continued in service after his retirement.