Uttarakhand High Court
Km. Nupur Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 February, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2959 of 2018
Km. Nupur Sharma ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned for the applicant, through V.C.
Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder, is present for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge herein is to the order dated
09.01.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby,
claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment, was rejected. A further writ of mandamus
is sought directing the respondents to appoint petitioner
on compassionate grounds on a suitable post as per the
educational qualification of petitioner.
3. It is the case of petitioner that her mother Smt.
Vijay Laxmi (deceased) was a government servant posted
as a Chief Assistant in the office of District Social Welfare
Department, Haridwar, who died in harness on
22.01.2011 leaving behind the petitioner as the sole child.
Petitioner moved an application to respondent no.3 on
30.12.2011 claiming compassionate appointment. The
respondents thereafter asked for certain documents
which too were supplied by her, particularly, a certificate
to the effect that she was living separately from her father
and was not dependent upon him. The certificate so
supplied by her clearly demonstrated that mother of
petitioner late Vijay Laxmi had relationship with
petitioner's father named Om Prakash and she is the only
daughter of late Vijay Laxmi. Despite supplying the
documents, that too in 2013, no action was taken by
respondent-Department regarding the claim of petitioner
which constrained her to file WPSS No.2576 of 2017,
which was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 07.09.2017 directing the Director,
Social Welfare, Uttarakhand to decide petitioner's
representation within two weeks from the date of
judgment i.e. 07.09.2017.
4. Respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated
09.01.2018, rejected the claim of petitioner. Feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has come up before this Court.
5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of
respondent nos.2 and 3 wherein it is stated that father of
petitioner Om Prakash is in government service and was
working as a Chief Assistant in the office of District Social
Welfare Officer, Haridwar at the time of death of
petitioner's mother, and the financial condition of the
family was not such that without providing employment
to one member of family, the family would not sustain. It
is further stated that in educational documents, in place
of name of father, name of Om Prakash was written. The
documents submitted by petitioner reflected this fact. It
is also the stand of respondent-State that the
compassionate appointment is given only to tide-up the
financial calamity upon the family of the deceased
government employee. In view of the fact that father of
petitioner is a government servant, there was no financial
problem of petitioner, and therefore, she cannot be given
compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules.
6. I have perused the impugned order dated
09.01.2018 as well as the counter affidavit filed by the
State. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the
claim of petitioner was rejected only for the reason that
she is receiving family pension and was in receipt of
amount due towards gratuity, leave encashment,
insurance, GPF and other payments admissible to her on
account of her mother's death. The reasons cited by
respondent no.2 in rejecting the claim of petitioner appear
to be fallacious and the same cannot be sustained.
7. Having perused the documents annexed with
the writ petition, it is evident that there was a certificate
furnished by petitioner to the effect that the mother of
petitioner Vijay Laxmi and her father were not married,
although they lived like husband and wife and out of their
relationship, petitioner was born. It is also on record that
petitioner is the only issue or the legal heir of deceased-
Vijay Laxmi, and she is living separately from her father,
having no concern with him. On the basis of this fact
that the petitioner is living separately from her father to
whom her mother has not legally wedded, it cannot be
said that since Om Prakash, father of petitioner is in
government service, petitioner would not have any
financial crisis.
8. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the
respondent no.2 is set aside. Since the petitioner has
already suffered a lot as her claim for compassionate
appointment is pending since 22.01.2011, a writ of
mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the
case of petitioner for compassionate appointment in the
office of respondent no.3 at the earliest but not later than
three months from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.02.2024
R.Dang
