Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 816 (ALL)

Meena Devi v. State of U. P.

2015-04-15

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2015
JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to provide appointment to petitioner on Class IV post i.e. Orderly, under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974'). 2. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the husband of petitioner Sri Ram Nath was appointed vide order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti, on Class IV post in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 at Primary HealthCenter, Hariharpur Rani and in compliance of the same, he joined his services on 16.11.2006. The services of petitioner's husband were terminated vide order dated 17.12.2008. 3. The husband of petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing Case: Service Single No. 244 of 2009, challenging the order of termination dated 17.12.2008, which was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2009. The court, while quashing the termination order dated 17.12.2008, directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on Class IV post and pay him salary regularly in accordance with rules. 4. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by the writ court, the Additional Director vide order dated 24.10.2009 issued direction to the Chief Medical Officer to ensure compliance of the order and the Chief Medical Officer, in pursuance thereof allowed the husband of the petitioner to work on the post of Orderly, a Class-IV post and paid him salary regularly. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the husband of petitioner died on 04.03.2013 during his tenure of service leaving behind him the petitioner (his wife), a son (minor) and a daughter (minor) along with his aged father and after the death of the bread-earner of the family i.e. the husband of petitioner, the family of petitioner is facing great financial hard-ship, therefore, petitioner approached the opposite parties praying for giving her compassionate appointment. The Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti on 07.01.2014 informed the petitioner that her appointment order has been sent to the Director (Administration)-opposite party no.3 and after receiving of the direction, she will be given appointment. The Chief Medical Officer, Shravasti on 07.01.2014 informed the petitioner that her appointment order has been sent to the Director (Administration)-opposite party no.3 and after receiving of the direction, she will be given appointment. Since thereafter sufficient time has lapsed but no action has been taken in the matter of appointment of petitioner, therefore, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court, by means of instant writ petition, seeking direction against the opposite parties for her compassionate appointment. 6. Learned standing counsel, on the basis of instructions submits that as against the judgment of this Court dated 16.09.2009 an Special Appeal (Defective) No. 890 of 2009 is pending before this Court, therefore, the claim of petitioner is not being considered for her compassionate appointment. 7. Admittedly the termination order of petitioner's husband was quashed by this Court by means of order dated 16.09.2009 passed in Case: Service Single No. 244 of 2009? and in compliance of the direction of the writ court, the husband of petitioner was taken back in service and during the course of his employment, he died on 04.03.2013 leaving behind him the petitioner (his wife), two children and his aged father. The petitioner facing financial hardship approached the opposite parties for compassionate appointment. As per submission of learned counsel for petitioner, the claim of the petitioner is not being considered only on account of pendency of Special Appeal (Defective) No. 890 of 2009 against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2009 passed in Case: Service Single No. 244 of 2009. 8. The stand of opposite party of not considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is against the spirit of the provisions of 'the Rules, 1974' as the object of the said rule is to provide immediate redress from facing financial constraints due to death of bread-earner of the family and admittedly the opposite parties have not examined the financial hardship faced by the petitioner and other member members after the death of the husband of petitioner. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to examine the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the provisions of 'the Rules, 1974' within a period of next three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to examine the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the provisions of 'the Rules, 1974' within a period of next three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. In view of the observations made, hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.