Delhi High Court
Manorama Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.1309/2013
% February 27, 2013
MANORAMA SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jha with
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Hadala, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S.Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.2489/2013(exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
WP(C) No.1309/2013
1. The present case, though on facts may be argued to be a
sympathetic case, however, there has to be some end to litigation at some
stage. Litigants do not have right to keep on approaching the Court
repeatedly on the same issue, especially when an earlier litigation had
reached the Supreme Court and was unsuccessful.
2. The petitioner in the present case seeks compassionate
appointment. Compassionate appointment can only be as per an extant
policy of the Union or the State or an instrumentality of the Union/State. As
per the policy, the petitioner cannot get appointment because the petitioner is
the second wife of the deceased employee, Sh.Kameshwar who died in
harness.
3. Earlier, as the impugned order dated 24.9.2012 of the
respondent/authority shows, the petitioner had filed OA No.96/1997 before
the Central Administration Tribunal, Patna which was dismissed being
devoid of merits and thereafter an SLP bearing no. 9867/1997 in Supreme
Court was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in this
Court being WP(C) No.10401/2009 wherein appointment was sought for the
son of the petitioner and which was dismissed with liberty on 4.8.2009 to
approach the department. Another writ petition came to be filed being WP(C)
No.8574/2011 and which was disposed of on 8.2.2012 directing the respondent
No.1 to dispose of the representations dated 25.5.2010 and 26.8.2010.
The impugned order dated 24.9.2012 has therefore been passed
rejecting the representations. The relevant observations in the impugned
order reads as under:-
"As directed by the Hon'ble Court/NDLS vide order dt.
08.02.2012 the in instant Writ Petition, I considered the
representation dt. 25.5.2010 and 26.8.2010 of Petitioner
in the light of Rly Board's letter no.E(NG) 11/91/RC-
1/136 dt. 02.01.1992 on the subject as circulated vide
CPO/Calcutta letter No. CPO/CS/SA/POL/PT-VI dated
24.1.1992 which reads as under. It is clarified that in the
case of Rly employees dying in harness etc. leaving more
than one widow along with children born to the 2 nd wife
while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows
due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case
appointment on compassionate grounds to the second
widow and her children are not to be considered unless
the administration has permitted the second marriage..."
It is found that the ex-employee had never taken any
permission for second marriage which took place while
the first wife was alive.
In view of the observation as mentioned here in above, I
have come to the conclusion that subsequent to the death
of the earlier wife will not make the eldest son of
Petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Sinha eligible for
compassionate appointment. Thus the case of Sri. Ashish
Kumar Sinha for compassionate ground appointed is not
tenable".
4. The above facts show that neither the petitioner nor the son is
entitled to compassionate appointment because of the policy of the
respondent No.1 to deny employment where an employee marries for a
second time during the period of service without taking permission. If the
petitioner cannot get compassionate appointment, surely her son will also
not get compassionate appointment being governed by the same principle.
5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I put it to counsel for
the petitioner that whether in view of the facts of this case and the extant
policy of the respondent No.1 and the facts that earlier litigations have been
dismissed right till the Supreme Court, the petitioner still seeks to pursue the
petition. To this counsel for the petitioner states that the Court may pass
judgment.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of
`20,000/-. Costs can be recovered by the respondent No.1 in accordance
with law.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
ak
