Vivek Bind vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 15839 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2960 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Vivek Bind
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari,Gulab Chandra,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.9.2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is the illegitimate child and thus, does not fall within the definition of family as contained in the rules for appointment on compassionate ground.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner Shri Radhey Krishna died on 17.6.2011 while in service; the petitioner claims to be the son of the said Radhey Krishna out of the second wife.

It is also brought on record that out of the first wife of Lt. Radhe Krishna, he had three sons and out of the second wife i.e. the mother of the petitioner, he had three sons.

It is stated that certain dispute arose in between the parties which led to filing of Civil Suit No.1048 of 2011, which was decided on 30.11.2018 on the basis of a compromise wherein the parties had agreed that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would not be opposed by any of the parties to the said suit. In the light of the said compromise deed, the petitioner applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds, which has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the law is reasonably well settled that although the second marriage is not recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, the children out of the said second wedlock cannot be termed as illegitimate children. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivanshu Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Petition No.3744 (SS) of 2016 decided on 5.4.2018 wherein this Court had interpreted the definition of the word 'family' as occurs in the dying in harness rules.

In view of the said judgment, clearly the order impugned dated 16.9.2019 is not sustainable and is set aside with direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner treating him to be the family member of the deceased, in accordance with law.

While deciding, the authority concerned shall also consider the aspect of limitation as prescribed under the Rules.

The decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

Order Date :- 3.11.2022

Nishant