Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Kushum Lata And Another v. U.O.I. Thru' Director General Eme(Eme Civil)M.G.O.'S & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 20294 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 5388 (26 March 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).


Hon.V.M.Sahai, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

This petition has been filed by wife and son of late Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav.  Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav was working as Senior Civilian  Mechanic (SCM) at the station workshop EME at Lucknow.  He died in harness on 25.10.2000 at the age of 55 years leaving behind his widow, 6 major and 2 minor sons and a daughter.  The widow and the third son of the petitioner Virendra Kumar Yadav have claimed appointment on compassionate ground and made an application on 30.3.2001. Thereafter repeated reminders were sent but nothing happened.  A letter dated 8.11.2001 was received by the petitioner No.1 stating by the respondent No.2  that her application has been recommended to the Army Head Quarters. The respondent  No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment by his order dated 3.9.2002. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the respondent No.2 the petitioner No.2 filed an O.A. No.76/2001  before the Central Administrative Tribunal.  The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners by its order dated 28.1.2003.  It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court.

In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that after the death of the deceased  employee the terminal benefits paid to his wife are as under:    

"(a) DCR gratuity    Rs.2,87,486.00

 (b) GPF balance     Rs.   92,128.00

( c) CGE Insurance Rs.  43,374.00

In addition to that, a sum of Rs.3100/- per month on account of family pension is being paid to the petitioner No.1 regularly by the Govt."  


The respondent has placed reliance upon a judgement of the  Apex Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in 2007 (1) ESC 66 Supreme Court. it has been stated that whom the aforesaid amount has been received by the family it can maintain itself on the basis of notional interest of the amount.  

There is one other important aspect of the matter.  Petitioner No.2 is the third son of the deceased.  Whereas he has two elder brothers namely Jitendra Kumar Yadav and Rajendra Kumar Yadav but nothing has been stated for them. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the other two sons are living separately cannot be accepted.  Appointment on compassionate grounds are provided to meet the immediate exigencies of the family, it creates no right for claiming appointment.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we find no merit in the writ petition.  The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.






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


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 |

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