Delhi High Court
Shashi Mittal vs Union Of India on 2 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 44 (1991) DLT 422, 1991 (63) FLR 302, (1992) IILLJ 438 Del, 1991 RLR 113
Author: B Kirpal
Bench: B Kripal, D K Jain
JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. Rule D. B.
2. The petitioner alleges that her husband, Ashok Mittal, has been missing since. August 4, 1982 and is presumed to be dead and, there fore, she should be given employment on compassionate ground,
3. The respondents have stated that the husband of the petitioner had been dismissed from service with effect from January 11, 1984. The dismissal was challenged by the petitioner and an industrial dispute was referred for adjudication. The reference was disposed of and 'no dispute award' was given as the workman, namely, Ashok Mittal absented himself. A review of this order was sought by the petitioner. The Presiding Officer vide his order dated October 14, 1968 came to the conclusion that Ashok Mittal was alive and that he was not integrated in pursuing the dispute. This conclusion was arrived at because the Presiding Officer relied upon a letter dated September 25, 1984 stated to have been written by S. K. Mittal to the Reserve Bank of India. A copy of that letter has also been placed on record before us. In this letter it is stated by A. K. Mittal that he has absented himself for reasons beyond his control and that there had been differences between him and the petitioner herein. The reading of this letter clearly shows that A. K. Mittal was trying, and till now succeeding, in avoiding the petitioner. According to this letter A. K. Mittal is still alive. The correctness of this letter having been accepted by the Presiding Officer he, therefore, rightly came to the-conclusion that the original order of 'no dispute award' could not be reviewed.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter dated September 25, 1984 is not genuine. We see no reason for accepting this contention. The Reserve Bank of India is satisfied about the genuineness of this letter and in the affidavit in reply it has been started that the signatures of Ashok Mittal represent with his signatures which appeared on the official record of the bank. This being so, the petitioner cannot be regarded as being a widow of Ashok Mittal and in any case Ashok Mittal's services having been terminated there is no reason or right why the petitioner should be granted employment. Assuming for sake of arguments that Ashok Mittal has died, the wife of a dismissed officer has no right for employment on compassionate ground. Furthermore, in the letter purported to have been written by Ashok Mittal it has been stated that the petitioner's real name was Surinder Kaur and she was a Nurse working in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. This averments has been accepted by the petitioner and if the petitioner is otherwise gainfully employed, as she is in the present case, the question of her getting employment with the Reserve Bank of India on compassionate grounds does not arise. This is one reason for our not interfering in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. Accordingly dismissed.
