Allahabad High Court
Shikha Saxena Mishra vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 128 of 2023
Appellant :- Shikha Saxena Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad,Avinash Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Akash Maurya holding brief of Sri Chandan Agarwal learned counsel for the respondent no.4 i.e Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Budaun.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 02.02.2023 whereby claim of the appellant for grant of compassionate appointment in place of mother who had died in harness in the year, 2012 has been rejected.
The categorical finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is that the object of the compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis and after 10 years of death of mother of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, she cannot be said to be facing financial crisis.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the death of the mother of the appellant on 20.06.2012, she moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.03.2015 i.e within period of five years from the date of death. The contention, thus, is that claim of petitioner/appellant for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
In the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, there is no consideration of financial status of the appellant nor there is any finding that the appellant had not faced any financial crisis on account of death of her mother. Submission, thus, is that the finding returned by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the claim of the appellant about the financial status of the appellant may not be sustained.
Noticing the above, we may further record that at the time of death of the employee concern, the appellant was married and in the application filed before the Basic Education Officer which is appended at page-'43' of the paper book, it is stated by the appellant herself that she had purchased one house of an area 83.61 sq. mt and one plot of 166.30 sq. mt in the name of her husband, out of the money she received from P.F gratuity, insurance and sale of the property received in partition of the death of her mother.
In addition of the above, she also owns one plot of an area of 142.28 sq. mt. which was purchased in the name of the petitioner and her husband by her mother. Apart from these properties, there are other properties which were in the name of mother of the appellant and she is having share in the same. Besides, there is income of the husband of the appellant which has not been disclosed in the affidavit filed before the Basic Education Officer, Budaun. The statement made in the said application that the husband of the petitioner did not submit I.T.R/Income Tax Return for the last three years, prior to the date of moving of the application, is neither here nor there.
For the vague assertions made by the appellant in the information given to the Basic Education Officer pursuant to the query made by him learned Single Judge has rightly recorded that it cannot be accepted that the husband of the petitioner was not earning till the date of moving of the application on 17.03.2015 or the date of decision i.e 10.12.2021.
The findings returned by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner did not face any financial crisis on account of death of her mother in the year 2012, therefore, does not warrant any interference.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.3.2023
Harshita
