Devi Dass vs State Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3313 Del

10
$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 383/2008

      DEVI DASS                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Asit Kumar Roy, Adv.

                                Versus

      STATE OF DELHI & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for Ms.
                                       Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-4.
                                       Mr. N.D. Dalal & Mr. D.P. Singh,
                                       Advocates for R-6.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                         ORDER

% 13.07.2011

1. The petitioner claims to be the son of Sh. Bal Kishan who died on 1st

December, 1987 while in the employment of respondent MCD. The

petitioner claims to be about 4 to 5 years of age at that time. He claims that

his mother Smt. Raj Rani pre-deceased his father. He however admits that

after the demise of his mother his father was residing with the respondent

no.6 Smt. Dhanwanti, according to the petitioner illegally because Smt.

Dhanwanti were already married. This writ petition was filed in the year

2008 contending that after the demise of the father, the said Smt. Dhanwanti

1/ has received pensionary benefits of his father and also appointment with the

respondent MCD as a Safai Karamchari on compassionate ground by

representing herself as Raj Rani. The petitioner seeks investigation into the

same and cancellation of the appointment on compassionate ground given to

the said Smt. Dhanwanti.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been

completed. The person impleaded as Smt. Dhanwanti has described herself

as Raj Rani and has claimed herself to be the wife of late Sh. Bal Kishan. It

is further claimed that she is employed with the respondent MCD since prior

to the demise of late Sh. Bal Kishan.

3. The counsel for Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani has also contended that in

fact Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani brought up and got married the petitioner and

this petition has been filed as a result of subsequent disputes between the

two.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has today stated that he is not making

any claim with respect to the pensionary benefits availed of by Smt.

Dhanwanti/Raj Rani and has confined the relief in the present petition only

to the cancellation of her appointment. He however admits that no prejudice

has been caused to him by such employment even if given on compassionate

grounds to Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani. 2/

5. In the circumstances aforesaid, this is not deemed to be an appropriate

case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The relief to which the writ petition is confined

will not benefit the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise,

the disputes raised in the writ petition are factual in nature and cannot be

appropriately adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 13, 2011 bs

3/