Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 46 (UTT)

NITIKA ARYA v. STATE

2018-02-14

LOK PAL SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.9.2017 passed by respondent no.7 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment under dying in harness to the petitioner with immediate effect. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give all dues to the petitioner of Smt. Rani Arya (deceased) mother of the petitioner as early as possible. iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Rani Arya (since deceased) was posted as Head Mistress at Government Primary School, Udaipuri Chopra, Block Ramnagar, District Nainital. She died in harness on 25.11.2016. Petitioner submitted representation on 30.08.2017 before the competent authority to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. By order dated 5.9.2017, respondent no.7 rejected the candidature of the petitioner for want of succession certificate. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.5 wherein it is stated that petitioner preferred a representation on 02.12.2016 and requested to appoint her on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules and to pay the dues of her deceased mother. On 17.01.2017 the father of the petitioner also applied for dues of her deceased wife, where against the petitioner moved objection by way of letter dated 07.02.2017 and claimed that all the dues of her late mother should be paid to the petitioner only. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that from the communication of respondent no.7 dated 5.9.2017 it is evident that there is dispute regarding the payment of dues between the father of the petitioner and petitioner herself, therefore, it is difficult for the department to any proceedings in the matter. 4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that from the communication of respondent no.7 dated 5.9.2017 it is evident that there is dispute regarding the payment of dues between the father of the petitioner and petitioner herself, therefore, it is difficult for the department to any proceedings in the matter. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.8-Harish Chandra Arya, father of the petitioner was already married when hegot married with her mother Late Smt. Rani Arya and this material fact was suppressed by respondent no.8. According to the petitioner, respondent no.8 did second marriage with her mother and she (petitioner) is the only legal heir/representation of her mother Late Smt. Rani Arya, as such, she is entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the contents of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit and in view of the fact that the petitioner is the only legal heir/representative of Late Smt. Rani Arya, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, within a period of two months. The respondents are also directed to give all the dues to the petitioner or other legal heir of the deceased, if any, in accordance with law. 6. No order as to costs.