Allahabad High Court
Smt. Nirmala Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11871 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Nirmala Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Raj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State.
Petitioner no.1 is mother of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.1 is widow of deceased constable Jitendra Kumar Singh, who continued to fight legal battle initiated against his termination order dated 14.11.2003 by her husband, who died on 12.1.2005 and ultimately she got justice as this Court, vide order dated 8.3.2019, whereby, the writ petition No.43746 of 2004 was allowed and order of termination of her deceased husband was set aside and the matter was remanded back for any other punishment and to forward consequence thereof to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that on remand disciplinary authority imposes a major punishment but of minimum nature i.e. granting minimum pay scale and accordingly, all other death benefits were paid to petitioner. However, petitioners are still remained aggrieved that her son i.e. petitioner no.2 has not been granted compassionate appointment and for that, she filed an application in requisite format on 10.8.2020. Application was considered, however, by an order dated 25.6.2022, it was rejected on ground that on date of death of employee, he was not in service of the respondents and therefore, the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are not applicable.
Learned counsel submits that since the major penalty was set aside even after the death of employee and thereafter, he was awarded other penalty to put him under minimum pay scale and death benefits were already granted to petitioner, therefore, notionally it ought to be considered deemed that petitioner's husband was in service when he died-in-harness. Therefore, the reason given by the impugned order is not legally correct.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that even the reason for rejecting the application of petitioner may not be appropriate, however, the fact remained that application was filed in the year 2020 i.e. after more than 15 years of death of employee which is barred according to the relevant Rules of 1974.
It appears that reasons given by respondents are not correct and are contrary to order dated 8.36.2019, therefore, without entering into the merit of claim of petition in regard to compassionate appointment, including delay, if any. The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the concerned respondents' authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law considering the judgments passed by the Apex Court in Government of India and another vs. P. Venkatesh; (2019) 15 SCC 613.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022
Rishabh
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
