Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ASHA DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Asha Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 24330 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8994 (4 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24330 of 2006

Smt. Asha

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner, Smt. Asha Devi has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 25.04.2006 by means of which compassionate appointment has been provided to Sunny Yadav.

Brief background of the case is that Kailash Nath Yadav had been performing and discharging duties in U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Sri Kailash Nath Yadav died in harness on 19.04.2003. Petitioner claims herself to be the wife of late Kailash Nath Yadav and Sunny Yadav claims himself to be the son of Kailash Nath Yadav. After his death inter se parties it was agreed that entire retirement benefits would be collected by Smt. Asha Devi, petitioner and as far as compassionate appointment is concerned same would be provided to Sunny Yadav. An affidavit was filed in this respect by both Smt. Asha Devi and Sunny Yadav. Thereafter Smt. Asha Devi collocated entire retirement benefit of late Kailash Nath Yadav, an amount of Rs. 5,54,129/- and after said amount collected by her, she set her claim for grant of compassionate appointment. Both Smt. Asha Devi and Sunny Yadav filed separate writ petitions before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75023 of 2005 by Smt. Asha Devi and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75053 of 2005 by Sunny Yadav and this Court commanded the authorities concerned to look into the matter for grant of compassionate appointment. Pursuant to directives issued by this Court matter has been considered and compassionate appointment has been provided to Sunny Yadav. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.  

On presentation of present writ petition on 03.05.2006 the matter was directed to be taken up today i.e. 04.05.2006. Today matter has been taken up.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sunny Yadav through Rajesh Yadav, Advocate as well as original record has been produced.

Sri R.B. Tripathi, Advocate, appearing for petitioner contended that compassionate appointment ought to have been provided to petitioner and on totally unsustainable ground compassionate appointment has been provided to Sunny Yadav, as such impugned order in question is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.

Sri R.D. Khare, Advocate appearing for U.P. Power Corporation as well as Sri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate appearing for Sunny Yadav on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been assigned and petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief as she has accepted entire retirement benefit and started taking stand contrary to her own affidavit as such no interference be made by this Hon'ble Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced undisputed position which is emerging on the basis of record produced is to the effect that inter se parties agreement had been entered into and on the strength of the same petitioner was entitled to entire retirement benefits and Sunny Yadav was entitled to compassionate appointment. Petitioner is step mother of Sunny Yadav. In fact she is second wife of late Sri Kailash Yadav. Petitioner had taken entire retirement benefits and thereafter has taken U turn and set her claim for grant of compassionate appointment. Once petitioner has entered into agreement and accepted  entire retirement benefit then she could not be permitted to take U turn and set her claim for compassionate appointment.

Apart from this it has been noticed that in the document which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition the age of petitioner has been shown to be 22 years on 17.11.1975 and of her daughter Guddi, three years and  Now before this Court she is claiming her age as 39 years. All these fact clearly demonstrate that on totally ingenuine ground she has sought to set up her claim. Petitioner as per age entered into document which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 the age of petitioner at present is 52 years. In the said document Annexure No. 1 petitioner's daughter  Km. Guddi's age has been described as three years and petitioner is claiming as on date to be 39 years of age then as per the said document at that point of time age of petitioner was nine year with daughter of age three years.

In view aforesaid fact, cogent reasons have been given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, consequently, no interference is warranted. Writ petition is dismissed.

04.05.2006

Dhruv                


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.