Uttarakhand High Court
Deepa Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 December, 2023
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2173 of 2023
Deepa Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2174 of 2023
Deepa Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. alongwith Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh
Mehta, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi (through video conferencing) alongwith Ms. Neeti
Rana, Advocate for the private respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since both these writ petitions involve similar
controversy, therefore they are being heard and decided together. For
the purpose of brevity facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2173 of 2023 is
being taken up for consideration of the controversy.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby, the
petitioner was directed to produce and submit a succession certificate as a
condition precedent for the release of retiral dues of her deceased
husband.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner's husband was posted as Administrative Officer in the office of
respondent no. 3- Executive Engineer, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Almora
and he died while still in service on 21.03.2023 leaving behind the
petitioner only, as per petitioner's version.
4. The retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner was not paid,
according to learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, for the
reason that the private respondent nos. 4 to 7 claiming themselves to be
the legitimate sons/daughters of the Government servant i.e. Late Radha
Krishan Joshi, raised their claims.
5. Owing to this dispute, the petitioner was directed to bring her
succession certificate in respect of the retiral dues of her late husband.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 Executive
Engineer is highly unreasonable and illegal, as there is no such
requirement in view of the Government Order dated 08.08.1986, which
has been enclosed as Annexed No. 6 in connected Writ Petition (S/S) No.
2174 of 2023 issued by the State Government, wherein, the requirement
is to produce either affidavit of Magistrate/Tehsildar or the succession
certificate.
7. I have perused the Government Order relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and I found that the requirement of filing the
affidavit is available in case, when there is no dispute regarding the
sanction and release of the retiral dues of the deceased Government
Servant, but, when there is a dispute, the same can only be resolved after
the issuance of the succession certificate by a competent court.
8. The fact of the matter is that the private respondents have made an
application to the respondent no. 3 claiming themselves to be the
legitimate son/daughter of the deceased employee and for that reason
only, the petitioner was directed to produce a succession certificate issued
by the court of competent jurisdiction.
9. However, it is reflected from the record that the petitioner has
already moved Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora, by moving an application
for issuance of the succession certificate, which is Succession Suit No. 03
of 2023, Smt. Deepa Joshi Vs. Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Others.
10. Similar are the facts in the connected WPSS No. 2173 of 2023
filed by the petitioner. The only difference is that the petitioner was asked
to produce the succession certificate even for consideration of her claim
for compassionate appointment in place of her husband. It is pertinently
brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the private respondent nos. 2 and 3 that according to the
application moved by the private respondents, the petitioner is the second
wife of the deceased government servant and it is only for this reason,
she was called upon to submit the succession certificate so that
respondent can offer compassionate appointment to the legitimate person.
11. I do not find any illegality in the said order. The order is perfectly
within the four corners of the law and the same is upheld. The writ
petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed at the admission
stage. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed in limine.
12. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in this
judgment would not affect the rights of the parties and their status which
is to be still declared by the court of competent jurisdiction, which is
seized with the matter of issuance of succession certificate in Succession
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.12.2023
Ujjwal
