Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7972 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shraddha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition challenges an order dated 22 February 2018 pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been negatived. Dealing with the aspect of compassionate appointment, the Court had in its order dated 26 November 2018 noted prima facie the following:
“Presently on a consideration of the material on record, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 22.2.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
However, this observation shall not preclude the petitioner from bringing on record further material in support of her claim for appointment on compassionate basis as well as in support of her challenge to the said order.
In so far as the second relief is concerned, the Court finds from the reading of the counter affidavit that no circumstances having been alluded to in justification of stoppage of disbursement of retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. This is evident from the fact that merely because the mother-in-law allegedly furnished a false affidavit, on the basis of which the husband of the petitioner obtained employment, the same cannot detract from the right of the petitioner to claim retiral benefits.
Accordingly, let all retiral benefits which according to the respondents are admittedly payable to the petitioner be produced before this Court on or before the next date fixed. In case there be no any legal impeadment same shall be stated as such on affidavit.
List on 19.12.2018.”
After hearing the learned counsel for parties today, the Court finds no ground to review the position which was noticed in the above order insofar as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned.
Faced with the conclusions which were recorded in that order and bearing in mind the fact that the husband of the petitioner is alleged to have obtained compassionate appointment on the basis of a false statement, learned counsel for the petitioner also does not press this relief and restricts his claim to the release of all remaining benefits only.
As is evident from the order impugned the respondents take the position that the late Prashant Gupta (husband of the petitioner) had obtained appointment on compassionate grounds even though at the relevant time his mother Smt. Kamlesh Gupta was serving as a Mukhya Sewika in the service of the respondents since 1998. In view thereof, the respondents take the position that his appointment would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974.
However, this Court is constrained to note that the deceased Government servant was appointed on compassionate grounds on 22 November 2003 and continued as such in the service of the respondents till his death on 11 May 2017.
Admittedly during this long length of service rendered by the deceased Government servant between 2003 and 2017, no orders were passed either cancelling or recalling his appointment nor was any punishment imposed. The conclusion which the respondents record, in the impugned order, namely the initial appointment of late Prashant Gupta being illegal, would be wholly inequitable to uphold and cannot possibly be countenanced as a ground for denying the petitioner, his widow, his retiral benefits. Learned Standing Counsel also does not rest his submission on any statutory provision or rule in terms of which retiral benefits may either be forfeited or detained by the respondents upon coming to conclude that the initial appoint was illegal. To that extent the Court finds itself unable to sustain the position taken by the respondents or to hold that the petitioner would not be entitled to retiral benefits also.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the claim of the petitioner restricted to the release and grant of all benefits consequent to the death of the deceased Government servant shall be duly evaluated and disposed of in accordance with law and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 LA/-