Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suman vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19954
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21169 of 2009
Petitioner :- Smt. Suman
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh,Mohd. Khalil
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.I. Farooqui,Nigamendra Shukla,O.P. Pandey,S.K.M.Tripathi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Khalil, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. R.K. Tiwari, learned Additional C.S.C. for State respondents.
2. This writ petition is pending since 2009. This Court has passed the following order on 21.04.2009.
"Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri O.P. Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.7.
Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Each one of the respondents is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List after eight weeks.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that she was appointed under dying in harness provision and had been performing and discharging her duty and was being paid her remuneration. Petitioner submits that without providing opportunity of hearing to her, appointment has been cancelled on the ground of illiteracy.
Petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments in the case of 2001(1) UPLBEC 706 Committee of Management, R.B. Rao Intermediate College, Deoria and others Versus Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur and others and 2008(5) ESC 3773 (All) Smt. Shehnazbano Versus State of U.P. and others wherein this court has taken the view that widow cannot be denied appointment just because of its illiteracy.
Consequently in the fact of the present case as appointment is under dying in harness category, petitioner has nine children to sustain, order in question has been passed ex-parte to her, as there are two judgments in her favour.
Consequently, till the next date of listing, operation of the order dated 04.02.2009 passed by the committee constituted, shall be kept in abeyance."
3. The petitioner has enjoyed the benefit of aforesaid order for few years and thereafter this writ petition got dismissed on 15.05.2015 for want of prosecution and was later on restored on 20.03.2018, however, interim order was not extended. Thereafter the petitioner has not worked in the concerned college.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner refers that appointment of petitioner was on basis of compassionate grounds and she was working as a Class-IV employee and so far as her illiteracy is concerned, it could be ignored. He further submits that, in support of his submissions, there are judgments of this Court that compassionate appointment of a widow cannot be denied only on the ground of she being illiterate. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to tied over the immediate financial constraints. He further submits that no opportunity was granted to petitioner before the impugned order was passed.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that wedlock of the petitioner and deceased was doubtful and he refers the counter affidavit, specifically the para nos. 4 and 5, which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"4. That in reply to contents of paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition it is stated that the father of respondent no. 7 Late Krishna Kumar was working as Class-IV employee in Chaudhary Prem Nath Singh K.V. Inter College, Machhara, Meerut who died in harness on 07.02.2002. It is also relevant to state that the mother of respondent no. 7 Smt. Saroj predeceased her husband Late Krishna Kumar. Krishna Kumar was survives by his two daughters resondent no. 7 Km. Minto and Kumari Rajni and his widowed mother Smt. Raj Kali W/o Tika Ram.
It is denied that Krishna Kumar after the death of his wife Smt. Saroj has remarried with petitioner and out of wed-lock two daughters namely Km. Rani and Km. Pooja were born. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was married with Pappoo S/o Asha Ram and after the death of Pappoo, petitioner was married with Mahendra and out of their wed-lock (Petitioner and Mahendra) five children namely Kavita, Babita Sangeeta, Vikas and Gaurav were born, the said Mahendra is still alive. The answering respondent is filing a photo copy of parivar register as Annexure No. CA-1 to this counter affidavit.
5. That it is also pertinent to mention h ere that in the year 2005 respondent no. 7 filed a Suit No. 1106 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Meerut and after exchange of pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut vide his judgement and decree dated 04.11.2011 declared the Km. Minto, K. Rajni and Smt. Rajkali as the legal heirs of Late Krishna Kumar. A copy of judgment and decree dted 04.11.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-3 to this counter affidavit."
6. Learned counsel for petitioner refers rejoinder affidavit specifically the para nos. 4 and 5 which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"4. That the contents of Paragraph No. 4 of the Counter Affidavit are wrong hence denied. It is wrong to submit that petitoner is not the wife of late Krishna Kumar. It is true that earlier petitioner was married. She was never married with Mahendra Singh. The documents annexed as C.A. 1 is manufactured by the answering respondent for the purpose of the case.
5. That the contents of Paragraph No. 5 of the Counter Affidavit are wrong hence denied. It is wrong to submit that after death of first wife of Krishna Kumar never married. True fact is that after death of his earlier wife late Krishna Kumar married with petitioner out of their wedlock two daughters were born. It is wrong to submit that Mahendra Singh was husband of the petitioner."
7. I have considered the above submissions and taken note of facts of the present case that the petitioner has claimed herself to be a legally wedded wife of one Krishna Kumar, who died in harness. At the stage of appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds, no objection was raised with regard to her being the widow of deceased and she being an illiterate lady as well as that it appears that no reasonable opportunity was granted to her to refute allegations.
8. The Court also takes note of a fact that a Writ Petition, bearing No. 8772 of 2004, was filed by one Kumari Minto, against the financial benefit granted to the petitioner herein on death of Krishna Kumar and according to the record, the said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and till date it has not been restored nor any recall application was filed. The Court also takes note that the petitioner has still some years to reach age of superannuation.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order, dated 04.02.2009, does not survive and is accordingly set aside. The concerned respondent will grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four weeks and will pass a reasoned order within four weeks thereafter. The concerned respondent will consider the case in a sympathetic manner, without entering much into the technical issues, however, the principle of 'no work no pay' will be taken note of.
10. With aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.2.2025
Saurabh
