Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1115 (ALL)

Rekha v. State of U. P.

2023-04-21

PANKAJ BHATIA

body2023
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhatia, J. Sri K.K. Pandey, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Nagar Nigam. The same is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2022 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and for grant of benefits after the death of the husband of the petitioner have been denied mainly on the ground that an inquiry, which was got conducted, the death certificate was found not to be genuine. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the wife of late Raju son of Gattu who was working with the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow died on 13.03.2010. The order records that while giving a statement, the petitioner mentioned the name of her husband as Sujeet son of Phool Chand. The said statement, as per the order, raised suspicion which led to constitution of a three member Committee. The three member Committee based upon their evidence came to the conclusion that the Death Certificate relied upon by the petitioner was a fraudulent document and did not find mentioned in the records of the Nagar Nigam. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had obtained a legal heir certificate from the District Magistrate, Lucknow dated 26.11.20214, which clearly demonstrates and records the petitioner to be the wife of late Raju son of Gattu. He argues that once the certificate is issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, it was not open to the Nagar Nigam authorities to have carried out the proceedings by constitution of a Committee as the certificate issued by the District Magistrate was binding on the respondents unless the same was found to be incorrect. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow does not even find mention in the impugned order. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the issue with regard to the determination of succession is not vested with the authorities of Nagar Nigam and, thus, the order impugned is bad in law. 6. The Counsel for the respondent based upon the instruction states that the Certificate of the District Magistrate, Lucknow as relied upon by the petitioner was not submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 7. 6. The Counsel for the respondent based upon the instruction states that the Certificate of the District Magistrate, Lucknow as relied upon by the petitioner was not submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authority. 7. The Counsel for the respondent tries to justify the order stating that a three member Committee had investigated the matter at their end and recorded that the Death Certificate, produced by the petitioner was verified with the computer records and was found not to be genuine. 8. The said submission of the Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted, prima facie, for the reason that the Nagar Nigam Authorities by virtue of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam do not have the power of determination of succession. In any case, non-consideration of the vital documents as indicated above rendered the order dated 27.07.2022, ex-faice, in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Considering the fact that in the order dated 27.07.2022, there is no consideration of the certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, while passing the order as also the statement given by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-6 has not been considered and does not find mention in the impugned order. 10. The impugned order dated 27.07.2022 is set aside. 11. The matter is remanded to the respondent authority to pass fresh orders. While passing the fresh order, the respondents will consider the certificate dated 26.11.2014 issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and shall also consider the letter dated 27.11.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and shall also accord hearing to the petitioner. The order shall be passed within a period of six weeks from today. 12. Needless to say that all the benefits, to which the petitioner is found to be entitled, shall be extended to her forthwith. 13. The writ petition stands allowed.