High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sukh Devi v. Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division - WRIT - A No. 17404 of 2003  RD-AH 1527 (25 November 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17404 of 2003
Smt. Sukh Devi Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution
Division, U.P.Power Corporation,
Farrukhabad and another
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard Sri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
The husband of the petitioner, late Sobaran Lal, was in the service of the Respondent-Corporation. He died in harness on 13.6.1996. The petitioner contends that she filed an application for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on 7.4.1998 and thereafter sent several reminders, including the one dated 10.2.2003, but she was not given any appointment on compassionate ground. However, by order dated 24.2.2003 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and thus the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the said order dated 24.2.2003 and also for a direction to the respondents to appoint her under the Dying in Harness Rules.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.2.2003 would show that the respondents have treated the reminder/representation of the petitioner dated 10.2.2003 as the application for appointment on compassionate ground and thus rejected the same on the ground that it has been filed after more than five years of the death of her husband. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been categorically asserted that the application for appointment on compassionate ground had been filed by the petitioner on 7.4.1998. This factual assertion has not been denied in the counter affidavit. As such it is clear that the reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner that the same has been filed after more than five years is patently wrong. The application of the petitioner having been filed on 7.4.1998, which was within two years of the death of her husband, the same could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. The Executive Engineer, Respondent no.1, has wrongly treated the reminder dated 10.2.2003 as the application for appointment on compassionate ground whereas the original application dated 7.4.1998 remained pending.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.2.2003 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with a direction that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules in place of her husband, which was filed on7.4.1998, shall be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law, by the Respondent no.1 by a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties, if there be any, within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him along with a Photostat copy of the application dated 7.4.1998.
No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.