Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1761 (ALL)

Raj Kumari Devi v. State of U. P.

2003-08-06

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Late Madan Prasad Gupta was appointed on 5.1.1979, as a Lekhpal in Tehsil Farenda, district Maharajganj. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of late Madan Prasad Gupta who died on 1.3.1998. Petitioner No. 2 is his son. It is alleged that being legal heir and representative of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation to the Collector, Maharajganj for payment of his retiral benefits but no action was taken by the Respondents and neither the pension nor the retiral benefits of the deceased were released to the Petitioners except a sum of Rupees 15,305 on 7.12.1993 as the arrears of revised pay scale due to late Madan Prasad Gupta. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid situation the Petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31869 of 1999 for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to release the family pension and other retiral benefits and further to appoint the Petitioner No. 2 under the U.P. (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants) Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 4. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of by order and judgment dated 2.8.1999, directing the Collector, Maharajganj to release the family pension and other benefits which may be due in favour of the Petitioner if permissible under rules and to also consider the question of appointment of the Petitioner No. 2 within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the judgment and order dated 2.8.1999, the Petitioner submitted representation along with a copy of judgment and the copy of the writ petition on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The representation of the Petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 3.3.2000. Aggrieved by the order this petition has been filed praying that appropriate orders for payment of all the retiral benefits as well as of the Petitioner No. 2 may be ordered by this Court. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that one Sri Parmeshwar Sahai had filed a complaint against late Madan Prasad Gupta stating that he had not passed High School Examination. Late Madan Prasad Gupta was suspended on 11.12.1997 and expired on 1.3.1998, i.e., within about 2 and 1/2 months of the order of suspension. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that one Sri Parmeshwar Sahai had filed a complaint against late Madan Prasad Gupta stating that he had not passed High School Examination. Late Madan Prasad Gupta was suspended on 11.12.1997 and expired on 1.3.1998, i.e., within about 2 and 1/2 months of the order of suspension. A report was, therefore, submitted to the effect that appointment of Madan Prasad Gupta since deceased was doubtful as his dependents could not produce the High School certificate of the deceased. The relevant extract of the report is as under: Other language 6. The services of Lekhpal are governed by Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 8 of the rules regarding the qualification is quoted below: "The minimum educational qualification shall be Hindustani Middle or Junior High School Examination." 7. From the report above it appears that the District Magistrate, Farenda by letter dated 29.8.1997 and 5.9.1997 had issued order to Madan Prasad Gupta to submit his High School certificate but was not submitted by him and he expired on 1.3.1998 during suspension. It appears from the report that enquiry proceeded after the death of late Madan Prasad Gupta and was concluded after 2 years of his death recommending that payment of after retiral benefits was not justified as the dependents of the deceased could not produce the High School certificate of the deceased Madan Prasad Gupta and his appointment was therefore, said to be doubtful. 8. There is no illegality or infirmity in so far as, the order, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, is concerned for the reason, his dependents cannot claim any legal right to appointment under the U.P. (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants) Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In so far as payment of retiral benefits are concerned, it is a fact that Madan Prasad Gupta had served the department for about 19 years. He may not have been able to produce the High School certificate due to number of reasons when asked for by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before initiation of enquiry proceedings like it may have been lost or destroyed, etc. He may not have been able to produce the High School certificate due to number of reasons when asked for by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before initiation of enquiry proceedings like it may have been lost or destroyed, etc. It is also possible that he could have produced it, had he remained alive, by getting a duplicate copy made from the office of the High School and Intermediate Board but all this is only in the realm of possibility. In any case, the qualification for appointment is Middle or Junior High School, i.e., Class VIII pass as provided under Lekhpal Rules, 1958. 9. Payments of gratuity to the employees are not bounty given to him nor are alms to be given to the family of the deceased. After retirement the benefits of pension, gratuity, etc. of the deceased could not be stopped merely on the suspicion that he was not High School pass, regard being had to the facts that the enquiry report was submitted on 6th January, 2000, i.e., almost about 2 years after the death of the deceased. Beneficial legislation must always be read for achieving the object and purpose for which it has been legislated. 10. There is no denial of the fact that he had served the department for 19 years and the Petitioners have also been paid the difference of revised pay scale. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to pay the full after retirement due of the deceased to the Petitioner. 11. In so far as the claim of giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of the deceased is concerned, the order rejecting the claim is upheld. 12. For these reasons the writ petition succeed and is allowed with direction to the Respondents to pay all the retiral dues of the deceased Madan Prasad Gupta to the Petitioners.