AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Smt. Radhika Nigam, wife of Shri Rameshchandra Nigam, while working in the post of Medicine Maker with respondent No. 2, died in harness on
13/06/2014. Petitioner, being the brother of deceased Radhika Nigam, on the strength of Will dated 17/04/2014 executed by Radhika Nigam in his
favour, is claiming compassionate appointment from respondent No. 2 by way of this writ petition.
Mr. U.R. Koshaley, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No. 2 is absolutely unjustified in not considering the case of the
petitioner and not granting compassionate appointment to him being the brother of deceased Radhika Nigam in terms of Circular dated 14/06/2013
issued by the State Government. He would further submit that on the basis of the Will dated 17/04/2014 executed by Radhika Nigam in favour of the
petitioner, he is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.
On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would submit that petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is barred by Clause
5 ( ) of the Circular dated 14/06/2013 issued by the State Government as on account of death of a married Government servant, his/her widowed
husband/wife would be entitled for compassionate appointment. In the instant case, since deceased Radhika Madan was already married, her
widowed husband would be entitled for compassionate appointment, as such, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
Admittedly, Smt. Radhika Madan was married to one Rameshchandra Nigam when she died in harness on 13/06/2014 while working on the post of
Medicine Maker with respondent No. 2. Petitioner, being the brother of deceased Radhika Madan, is claiming compassionate appointment on the
death of her sister. The issue herein is governed by Clause 5 of Circular dated 14/06/2013 issued by the State Government.
For the sake of convenience, Clauses 5 and 6 of the Circular dated 14/06/2013 being relevant, are reproduced hereinÂbelow :Â
A careful perusal of the aforesaid clauses would show that on death of a married deceased Government servant, his/her widowed husband/wife
would be entitled for compassionate appointment and in their absence, the son/adopted son would be entitled. Clause 6 of the Circular clearly shows
that in case the Government Servant is unmarried, his/her brother would be entitled for compassionate appointment.
In the instant case, since deceased Radhika Madan was already married to one Rameshchandra Madan when she died in harness on 13/06/2014,
therefore, her husband would be entitled for compassionate appointment by virtue of Clause 5 ( ) of Circular dated 14/06/2013 issued by the State
Government and the petitioner, being deceased Radhika Madan's brother, would thus not be entitled for compassionate appointment. In that view of
the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The instant writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).