Allahabad High Court
Kewalapati And Another vs U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam ... on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2183 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kewalapati And Another
Respondent :- U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
The case was heard on 20.02.2023 and the Court has passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned order is in the teeth of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1975 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules, 1975'). He next submitted that Rule 7 of Rules, 1975 only provides that head of the office shall decide the suitability of application for appointment on compassionate ground, in case, more than one family member has submitted the application and while taking decision, he shall take care of specially widow and necessary members. There is no requirement for no objection certificate from the other family members.
He next submitted that in the present case, after death of deceased employee, i.e. father of petitioner No. 2, no objection certificate has been issued by the widowed mother (petitioner No. 1), two married sisters and one unmarried sister to petitioner No. 2, upon which, he has submitted application for appointment on the post of 'Shramik' on compassionate ground, whereas, widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee has not given her consent and has also submitted application seeking her appointment on the said post. He firmly submitted that, in light of Rule 7 of Rules, 1975, there is no requirement of any no objection certificate and it is upon the head of the department to take decision strictly in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules, 1975. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment and order in the case of Manohar Vs. Executive Engineer, Electric Distribution Khand (1st): ALLCJ 1999 2 1074 and submitted that in the said case, the Court has opined that interest of widow is paramount and has to be secured.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted 10 days time to seek instruction about the matter.
Put up as fresh on 02.03.2023.
Is is open for the respondents to take decision on the appointment of the petitioner during the pendency of this petition. "
Pursuant to order dated 20.02.2023, Sri Sandeep Kumar Rai, Advocate has produced instruction dated 01.03.2023, which is taken on record. According instruction dated 01.03.2023, petitioner is required to submit certain documents for considering his application for appointment on compassionate ground.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that documents so required vide letter dated 1.03.2023 has already been submitted by the petitioner much earlier. He further submitted that application for appointment on compassionate ground in dying in harness was submitted on 09.06.2021 alongwith medical certificate dated 29.05.2021, but respondents have kept the matter pending for a long time and now they are asking for a fresh medical certificate. He further pointed out that so far as, consent from Executive Engineer is concerned, as mentioned at point no. 3 of instruction dated 1.03.2023, it is the internal matter of respondents, for which, petitioner may not be made responsible.
He next submitted that, as Ms. Alka Devi, widowed daughter-in-law of deceased employee is against the petitioner, therefore, he is not in a position to produce her Aadhar Card as mentioned at point no. 4 of instruction dated 1.03.2023
Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to submit an application before respondent no. 3 alongwith documents so required and certified copy of this order within two weeks. After submission of application, respondent no. 3 is directed to take decision upon the application of petitioner in accordance with Rule 7 of Rules, 1975 maximum within two months. In case approval is required from respondent no. 2, he shall submit its recommendation before respondent no. 2, who in turn shall take decision upon the said recommendation within two weeks thereafter.
It is made clear that, to fulfill the need of point No. 3 of instruction dated 1.03.2023, respondent No. 3 shall itself obtain consent/comments of Executive Engineer, as it is their internal matter. For point No. 4, respondent No. 3 shall not compel the petitioner to produce Aadhar Card of Ms. Alka Devi, widowed daughter-in-law of deceased employee. Further, for point no. 6, if required, respondents shall issue letter to CMO to conduct the medical examination of petitioner. Upon which, petitioner shall get himself examined from the CMO and submit the medical certificate before respondent No. 3.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
ADY
