Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROHTAS KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rohtas Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 8008 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2661 (19 February 2007)

 

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.1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8008 of 2007

     Rohtas Kumar              versus         State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to answer the question put forth by the Court that what was the last pay drawn by the deceased employee at the time of his death and retiral benefits that had been given to the dependent of the deceased employee or the property to show whether the family is in indigent circumstances or not.

Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner moved an application on 26.8.1994 before respondent no.5 for appointment on compassionate ground  of her son Deepak. She also died on 15.7.2003. The eldest son Deepak Maurya died in a motor accident on 11.12.2002. On their death the petitioner may apply for appointment on compassionate ground but he has not applied for compassionate appointment in 1994 when his father died in harness.

      From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.8.2004, which is highly belated.  Appointment on compassionate ground is not a legal right of the dependent of the deceased employee.

The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards letters dated 18.10.2004 and 18.11.2004 appended  Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition which are as under:-                          

Ik=kad&{ks0dk0 y[k0@iz'kk0 Hkw0iw0&Mh0vks0@04@ch 3644 fn018&10&04

    Lskok esa]

          Jh jksgrk'k

          Iqk= Lo0 Jh cynso

          Xzkke& vkxkiqj lh0vkj0ih0 jksM

          LsksUV~y os;jgkml] jkeiqj ds lkeus]

          ftyk jkeiqj A

fo"k;& vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa  A

egkns;]

      Jh jkts'k dqekj Hk.Mkj izcU/kd ls0os0 cs'k fMiks fiy[kuh us fnukad&30&9&2004 dks vkids firk Lo0 cYnso dh vfFkZd fZLFkfr dh tkWp dh vkSj ;g laLrqwfr dh gS fd tc rd vki vius HkkbZ nhid o cgu dq0 lhrk dh e`R;q dk izek.k Ik= izLrqr ugha djrs vkidh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds okjs esa fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A

 vr%vki vfr'kh?kz mijskDr izek.k Ik= Hka.aMkj izcU/kd ds ek/;e ls bl dk;kZy; dks izLrqr djsa mlds mijkUr gh tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fjiksZV ds fopkj gsrq fuxfer dk;kZy;  dks vko';d dk;Zokgh ds fy, Hkstk tk ldrk gS A

                                 Hkonh;

                              g0 vLIk"V

                               ¿,0ds0 esgjks=k�?

                        Hk.Mkj.k ,oa fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh

                               ¿ Izkz'kklu �?^^

                 

             dsUnzh; Hk.Mkj.k fuxe

           ¿ Hkkjr ljdkj dk ,d midze �?

Ik=kad {kas0 dk0 y[k0@iz'kk0@Hkw0iw0 Mh0vks0@04@ch 7000 fnukad 18&11&04

     lsok esa]

            Jh jksgrk'k

            Ikq= Lo0 Jh CkYnso

            Xzkke& vkxkiqj] lh0vkj0ih0 jksM

            lssUV~y osojgkml] jkeiqj ds lkeus

            ftyk jkeiqj A

 fo"k;& vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa A

 egksn;]

  d`Ik;k bl dk;kZy; ds Ik=kad {ks0dk0y[k0@ iz'kk0@Hkw0iw0 Mh0 vks0@04@ch&3644 fnukad 18&10&04 dk lanHkZ ys] ftlesa  vkils vius cM+s HkkbZ Lo0 nhid o cgu Lo0 dq0 lhrk dh e`R;q dk izek.k Ik= izLrqr djus ds fy, dgk x;k Fkk ysfdu vHkh rd mijksDr izek.k Ik= izkIr ugha gq, ftlds vHkko esa tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fjiksZV fuxfer dk;kZy; ugha Hksth tk ldh gS A

vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd nksuks izek.k Ik=  '''kh?kz Hksts ftlls lHkh dkxtkr fuxfer dk;kZy; vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Hksts tk ldsa A

                           Hkonh;

                           g0 vLi"V

                         ¿ ,0ds0 esgjks=k�?

                     Hk.Mkj.k ,oa fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh

                            ¿ Izk'kklu �?^^

  The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has given assurance in the aforesaid letters that the petitioner will be appointed is incorrect.  By letter dated 18.10.2004 Annexure-7 to the writ petition the petitioner has been informed that he has not submitted the required documents regarding claim of his brother Deepak Maurya and sister Km. Sita for an enquiry. Simultaneously again the petitioner has been informed by letter dated 18.11.2004 Annexure-8 to the writ petition regarding completion of the formalities etc.

The counsel for the respondents submits that it is settled law that the object of Dying in Harness Rules is enable the family of the deceased to tide-over the sudden crisis due to death of sole bread winner and the father of the petitioner was only earning member of the family; that the petitioner has no other source of livelihood as such he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground.

  Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 20.1.1994. The mother of the petitioner died on 15.7.2003 and the elder brother of the petitioner died on 11.12.2002. Sister of the petitioner Sita Devi has been married.

    It appears from the record that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father.  He has attained majority; has taken education up to High School and has also married his sister during this past 12 years since the death of his father. All these establish that the petitioner is not in cold penury or in indigent circumstances. From the letters of the authorities quoted above it is also apparent that the petitioner has not completed all the formalities within time.

For the reasons stated above, no case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dated 19.2.2007

CPP/-  

     

       

         


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.