Sindhu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 26 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 59
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19357 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Sindhu Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Ayank Mishra on behalf of respondents 3 to 5.

The petitioner claims that her husband late Nand Lal, who was in employment with the respondent Corporation died of electric burn injuries on 19.4.2014 while in harness. The District Magistrate Mau on 21.11.2014 issued an heir-ship certificate according to which, the petitioner and her son Anis are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased employee. The petitioner claims to have made an application for being granted compassionate appointment. It seems that the sixth respondent Tara Devi whom the petitioner claims is the divorcee wife of one late Nand Kumar also staked claim for compassionate appointment. She also preferred Writ A No. 14610 of 2017 before this Court complaining that her application for grant of compassionate appointment is not being considered. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.4.2017 directing the Executing Engineer to decide her claim within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order alongwith a fresh representation. The petitioner has now approached this Court seeking a direction that while considering the claim of sixth respondent, the Executing Engineer (the fifth respondent) be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as well. It is pointed out that on 1.4.2016 the Executing Engineer sent a communication to the District Magistrate, Mau pointing out that two heir-ship certificates dated 24.5.2014 and 21.11.2014 have been issued from his office. In one of the certificates, the sixth respondent and her sons and daughter have been shown as the heirs of the deceased employee, while in the other certificate, the petitioner and her son as heirs of the deceased employee. Having noticed the said fact, the Executing Engineer made a request to the District Magistrate to make an inquiry in regard to the rival claims and to apprise him so that appropriate decision is taken in the matter. It is submitted that the aforesaid fact was concealed by the sixth respondent while filing the writ petition. It is further submitted that the sixth respondent also did not implead the petitioner therein and thus, correct facts could not come on record.

Shri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation very fairly stated that the Corporation would be bound by the inquiry that would be made by the District Magistrate in regard to the rival claim of the petitioner and the sixth respondent.

Since, the dispute between the petitioner and the sixth respondent is to be considered and decided by the fifth respondent after the District Magistrate, Mau (the second respondent) decides the dispute relating to heirship, therefore, in the opinion of the Court interest of justice would be served in permitting the petitioner to approach the second respondent with a certified copy of this order and a fresh representation and in which event, the second respondent shall proceed to determine the rival claim of the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent within next two months. After the decision is taken by the second respondent, the same shall be forwarded to the Executive Engineer, who shall thereafter take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

It is left open to the petitioner to file certified copy of this order before the fifth respondent, so that he is apprised of this order and may refrain from taking decision until the dispute is adjudicated by the District Magistrate but at the same time, keep in mind the time frame fixed by earlier order of this Court dated 10.4.2017 in Writ A No. 14610 of 2017.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 4.5.2017

AK Pandey