Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT KUMARI DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt Kumari Devi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 21330 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 3325 (27 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

Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Collector, Jaunpur dated 11.4.2001 by which he has refused to accord the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband in harness.

The husband of the petitioner Khusiyal was working in the Collectorate  of Jaunpur and he died in harness on 6.8.2000. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2001 for giving her compassionate appointment in place of her husband. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1.3.2001 with the direction to the Collector, Jaunpur to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass the speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In pursuance of the above order of the High Court the petitioner's representation has been considered by the Collector, Jaunpur. The impugned order states that the deceased Khusiyal had a son named Kapil Dev, who is intermediate pass and since he was duly qualified and eligible, he was given appointment on compassionate basis. The date of birth of the petitioner is 3.4.1942 and as such she is overage. Therefore, for the above two reasons the petitioner is not entitled for any compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order incorrectly mentions the date of birth of the petitioner. The correct date of her birth is 3.11.1964 and, therefore, she is not overage. The petitioner is the second wife of the deceased. The Collector, Jaunpur has taken date of birth of the first wife of the deceased into consideration in rejecting the petitioner's representation.

Be as it may be, the fact remains that the benefit of compassionate appointment can only be given to one of the dependents in the family of the deceased. The said benefit has already been extended to Kapil Dev, the son of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further appointment on compassionate basis.

The writ petition lacks merit and as such is dismissed.

Dt. 27.2.07

S.S. 21330/01


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.