Usha Verma vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'Ble Siddharth Nandan, J.

Heard Shri Vinayak Varma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the respondents authorities by way of which claim of the petitioner, for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi.

The undisputed facts of the present case are that, the mother of the petitioner, late Vidyawati Devi, was working on the post of Clerk in Amar Shaheed Inter College, Aayar, Varanasi, who died in harness during service period on 29.11.2017; and immediately thereafter the petitioner has submitted an application dated 29.12.2017 for compassionate appointment, which was duly forwarded by the Manager.

Initially, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter; however, the same being assailed in Writ-A No. 3149 of 2019 (Usha Verma vs. State of U.P. and others), which was allowed vide order dated 31.5.2023, with a direction upon the District Level Committee to examine the matter in light of the ratio laid down in the case of Radhika Baghel vs. State of U.P. and three others, (Writ-A No. 494 of 2023); and now by way of impugned order dated 30.8.2023, again her claim has been rejected on the ground that, the husband of the petitioner was a retired Government Employee and was getting pension.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that, it was specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was not supporting her and she was living with her mother and was completely dependent upon her. The said pleadings have been made in para 7 of the affidavit filed along with the aforesaid writ petition; which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Pramod Kumar Rajak vs. Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, reported in 2011 (4) UPLBEC 2692; wherein it was held that mere grant of pensionary benefits to a person would not disentitle either that person the dependent of the deceased, from staking their claim for compassionate appointment.

A reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State Bank of India vs. Ram Payare and Others, reported in 2001 (2) UPLBEC, 1597, wherein a Division Bench of this Court in para 8 and 11 held that, it is well settled that the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provisions of the employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It further opined that, the receipt of family pension or any amount towards consequential benefits, cannot be a ground for rejecting the case of appointment on compassionate ground.

It is not disputed between the parties that, the application was made within time, under Rule 5 Sub-Clause 1 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, which prescribed a period of five years from the date of the death of the Government servant; and as such the application was made well within time.

It is also a specific case of the petitioner that the penury is continuing, as such the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered on the principles laid down in the State Bank of India and others vs. Ram Payare and Others (Supra); and moresoever the claim ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband was drawing pension, after his retirement as a Government Servant; specially in the circumstances when it is the specific case of the petitioner, that she was not living with her husband but with mother and was completely dependent upon her.

In view of the admitted facts as noted hereinabove, the rejection merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband was drawing pension after his retirement, cannot be sustained, and accordingly the impugned order dated 30.8.2023 is set aside.

In view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was dependent on the deceased Government servant, as evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered in light of the criteria as indicated hereinabove and as such the respondents authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of service of the certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.