Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1268 (ALL)

Lilawati Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-04-06

V.K.SHUKLA, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Smt. Lilawati Devi is before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1393 of 2016 (Smt. Lilawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premises that petitioner/appellant is not at all entitled for compassionate appointment. 2. Factual situation that is so reflected in the present case is that husband of the petitioner/appellant had been performing and discharging his duty as Electrician and he died in harness on 20.05.2012 due to heart ailment. Petitioner/appellant submits that after the death of her husband, she has moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.10.2014 and on the said application being moved, age and fitness certificate has been called for so that compassionate appointment could be offered. Petitioner/appellant submits that all the formalities stood fulfilled and thereafter, she has been communicated vide order dated 21.08.2015 mentioning therein that her claim has been rejected. Against the said order, petitioner/appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1393 of 2016 and same has been dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2016. Against the same, present Special Appeal has been filed. 3. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case neither the authority on the spot nor learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter that there has been various liability on the shoulder of petitioner/appellant, as detailed out in the writ petition and amount that has been taken into consideration, is too meagre in these hard days, and as such Special Appeal deserves to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful order has been passed and no interference be made. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual that is so emerging in the present case that petitioner is a widow currently aged about 48 years and she has proceeded to move an application for grant of compassionate appointment and her claim has been turned down by the authority concern on the premises that Rs. 2,72,262/- has been paid to the petitioner/appellant in regard to gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance and apart from this, she is receiving Rs. 7,455/- per month as pension and learned Single Judge also endorsed the same view. 5. 2,72,262/- has been paid to the petitioner/appellant in regard to gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance and apart from this, she is receiving Rs. 7,455/- per month as pension and learned Single Judge also endorsed the same view. 5. Before us it has been sought to be contended that on totally incorrect fact and figure, her claim has been non suited, whereas fact of matter is that for getting treatment of her husband, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been borrowed from the relatives and after said amount has been received by her, same has been returned and petitioner has only balance of Rs. 1,47,262/- after clearing the loan, apart from this, it has also mentioned that daughter taken in adoption is also living with her. Petitioner submits that once such has been the factual situation that has been detailed out in paragraph no. 11 and 12 of the writ petition, then claim of petitioner/appellant ought not to have been non suited. 6. What we find from the record is that neither the authority, who has proceeded to consider the claim for grant of compassionate appointment nor learned Single Judge has cared to take into account all such aspect of the matter, as to whether in this era of high cost living, as it is feasible to sustain or not?. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of deceased employee in the light of resources available and then to take a call as to whether without providing employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. The order passed by the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division (1) No. Boring), Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur cannot be approved of by us, as story as set up by the petitioner/appellant which is inclusive of her liability; liability of daughter taken in adoption living with her, wrong calculation of land has not been examined and on simple calculation claim has been denied. 7. 7. Consequently, in view of such fact, present Special Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the authority concern i.e. Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division (1) No.Boring), Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur dated 21.08.2015 is set aside and similarly order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.01.2016 is also set aside and matter is remitted back to the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division (1) No. Boring), Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur for reconsidering the claim of petitioner/appellant for grant of compassionate appointment on the basis of record, her liabilities and also keeping in the era of high cost living, preferably within next four months. Petitioner should furnish full details of her liabilities within four weeks, before the authority concerned, who shall thereafter take decision within next two months thereafter. Appeal allowed.