Allahabad High Court
Pooja 6887(S/S)2007 vs State Of U.P.Thru Its ... on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 47 of 2016
Appellant :- Pooja 6887(S/S)2007
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Medical & Health Lko.& Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Present appeal is barred by limitation from 5 months and 13 days.
Heard Sri Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Raje, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on C.M.A. No. 13460 of 2016 as well as on the question of admission.
For the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, the cause shown in the application is sufficient and, as such, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and delay condonation application is allowed.
Present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 whereby the learned Writ Court while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant has observed that the claim of the appellant seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules does not fall within the definition of family and, thereafter, rejected her claim.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant's mother Smt. Vinodi Devi was working as A.N.M. in the Primary Health Centre, Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow and had died in service on 09.09.2001. After her death the appellant's brother late Ravi Prakash Pandey had applied for the compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and he was given appointment by the opposite parties after demanding succession certificate. On 23.03.2003 the brother of the appellant had been murdered during his service period and, therefore, the appellant, who is only dependent on her mother and brother, applied for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974 and when no action was taken on her application, she filed Writ Petition No. 6887 (S/S) of 2007 before this Court that was dismissed by the learned Court vide order impugned. Hence, present special appeal.
Learned Writ Court while considering the claim of appellant has examined the question whether the appellant would be a dependent within the definition of family of her brother or not and found that the said question was not satisfactorily explained in the writ petition and, as such, her claim under the Rules of 1974 is misconceived, dismissed the writ petition aforesaid. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has already been married before death of her brother and, therefore, under the Rules of 1974 she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.
Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that learned Writ Court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. There is no legal error while passing the order impugned.
Special appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and same is, accordingly, dismissed.
[ Jaspreet Singh, J. ] [ Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. ]
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
Shekhar
