Delhi High Court
Rashmi Sinha vs Union Of India General Manager & ... on 6 September, 2021
$~15 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 06.09.2021
+ W.P.(C) 9478/2021
RASHMI SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA GENERAL MANAGER & ANR..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
[PHYSICAL COURT HEARING]
CM APPL. 29414/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9478/2021
2. On the previous date, i.e., 02.09.2021, we had passed the following
order:
"CM No.29414/2021
1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner, filing legible copies of
the dim annexures, before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) No.9478/2021
2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated
24.9.2019.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.09.2021
15:58:43
2.1. Essentially, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that,
her request for appointment, on compassionate ground, on
account of the death of her husband has been rejected by the
respondents, vide order dated 5.8.2015.
2.2. The record shows that, the husband of the petitioner was
removed from the service on 16.10.2003, after an inquiry was
carried out. The order of the disciplinary authority, dated
16.10.2003, was not challenged by the husband of the
petitioner, i.e., one, Mr. Sanjay Sinha.
3. Ms. Bhawna Massay, who appears on behalf of the
petitioner, says that the aforementioned order dated 16.10.2003,
was not communicated to the petitioner.
3.1. This plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner, seems
completely unbelievable, as the petitioner's husband, i.e., the
deceased Mr. Sanjay Sinha, could not have attended office or
received his salary, after 16.10.2003.
4. At this stage, Ms. Massay seeks accommodation on the
ground that the counsel, who has to argue the matter on behalf
of the petitioner, is not available today.
5. Accordingly, at the request of Ms. Massay, list the matter
on 6.9.2021."
2.1. As would be evident from a perusal of the order dated 02.09.2021, the
matter was stood over, as Ms. Bhawna Massay, Advocate, who appeared on
behalf of the petitioner, on that day, after the matter was argued
substantially, sought accommodation in the matter on behalf Mr. R.K.
Shukla i.e., the counsel-on-record for the petitioner.
2.2. Mr. Shukla says that, the respondents should be directed to produce
the order dated 16.10.2003, whereby, the petitioner's husband was removed
from service.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.09.2021
15:58:43
3. In our order dated 02.09.2021, we had dealt with a similar plea which
is reflected in paragraph 3 and 3.1 of the said order. We continue to
disbelieve the petitioner that her husband had not been removed from
service.
3.1. The petitioner i.e., the wife would have known that her husband was
not going back, to the same job, and that he was not drawing any salary from
the same job. The petitioner's husband, for whatever reasons, chose not to
take recourse to a legal remedy, qua the order of removal dated 16.10.2003,
which was passed by the disciplinary authority, after an enquiry.
3.1. Although, Mr. Shukla affirms the foregoing position, he says that, the
petitioner became aware of this fact, only when her request for
compassionate appointment was rejected.
3.2. According to us, the submission made by Mr. Shukla, is
misconceived.
4. Given the fact that, the petitioner's deceased husband, was removed
from service, as far back as on 16.10.2003, and that the said order was not
assailed by him, during his lifetime, makes the case advanced by the
petitioner, for appointment on compassionate ground, untenable.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 6, 2021
pa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:08.09.2021
15:58:43
