Dismissed

Rampyari @ Budhrani v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022WRIA/2830/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment application was dismissed. Court held petitioner not covered by any category of heirs as she was not legally wedded wife of deceased due to subsistence of prior marriage and identity not convincingly established.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Application for compassionate appointment rejected.

Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2830 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Rampyari @ Budhrani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra,Ram Naresh Singh,Sarvesh Singh,Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shive Datta Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Santosh Shukla learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today, taken on record. Also, learned Standing Counsel has produced original service book of the deceased Ram Sajivan. Original marriage agreement between the petitioner and Ram Sajivan dated 24.6.2006 has also been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Present petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 10.8.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur. Thereby the said authority has rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment made by the petitioner arising from the death of Ram Sajivan who died in harness on 20.1.2014 while working on the post of Peon at Sukhdev Inter College, Khaga, Fatehpur.

¶9

In rejecting the application made by the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur has considered the affidavit of the mother of the deceased namely Phoolmati dated 12.8.2014 wherein she had stated, her son Ram Sajivan died a bachelor. Also, service book of the deceased did not support the claim made by the petitioner that she was the married wife of the deceased.

¶10

In the present proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner has first relied upon a compromise stated to have been arrived between the petitioner and the sisters of the deceased Ram Sajivan namely Ms. Durga Devi, Ms. Sharda Devi and Ms. Lakshmi. It is dated 11.7.2018. It may be noted, the mother of the deceased Phoolmati died on 13.1.2017. Therefore, though her name appears in the compromise deed, she is not a signatory thereto.

¶11

Upon such facts being noted, learned counsel for the petitioner was required to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record the certificate to establish the occurrence of death of Smt. Phoolmati. Further, original of the Marriage Agreement (relied upon by the petitioner), was also required to be produced.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it now transpires, petitioner was first married to one Hori Lal, as has been stated in paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit, filed today. During subsistence of that marriage and without its legal dissolution, petitioner claims to have entered into a relationship with the deceased Ram Sajivan pursuant whereto they entered into a written agreement described as Marriage Agreement. It is dated 24.6.2006.

¶13

Original document produced today indicates, the same has been signed by one in the name Ram Sajivan and the other in the name Budhrani. That document does not mention any alias of the said Budhrani. It describes that person as daughter of Om Prakash. Signatures affixed to that Marriage Agreement is also in the writing-Budhrani. Then, though the document has been prepared on 24.6.2006, it has been stamped on 26.9.2005. Also, grave doubt exists as to the identity of the petitioner being the same person who may have entered into Marriage Agreement with the deceased. It is so because the signatory of that

¶14

document did not describe herself as Budhrani @ Ram Pyari. She also did not disclose her parentage in that document.

¶15

Present petition has been filed by Ram Pyari @ Budhrani. Affidavit thereto is of one Ram Pyari. It does not disclose any alias of the said Ram Pyari. Identity of said Ram Pyari has been claimed on the strength of a photostat copy of Voter ID Card. It also describes the holder of that card to be Ram Pyari and not Ram Pyari @ Budhrani. Facts, noted above may themselves prevent the Court from granting any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution to such a person about whose identity there exists grave doubt.

¶16

Yet, a more serious objection exists-the petitioner admits to have married one Hori Lal in the year 2006 and further that that marriage was never legally dissolved. Being Hindu, by religion, it is difficult to accept the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ram Sajivan, during lifetime of Hori Lal. No fact disclosure has been made as to the identity of Hori Lal or his current status. A legally wedded wife of one person may never be heard to claim compassionate appointment against death of her live in partner, during subsistence of her marriage.

¶17

Citizens may exercise their free choice in these matters i.e. to live such life as may not infringe with law yet, the Court can only recognise the legal right and act to protect the same. Thus, though the petitioner's life and liberty was protected despite her choice to live outside her marriage, at present the law may not recognise the right of the petitioner to compassionate appointment for reason of death of her live in partner. That law being Rule driven, the petitioner is found not covered by any category of heirs of the deceased entitled to compassionate appointment. The Service Book of the deceased also does not

¶18

include the name of the petitioner as a family member of the deceased.

¶19

For the reasons noted above, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶20

The original service book of the deceased has been returned to the learned Standing Counsel and the original Marriage Agreement has been returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after due perusal.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Faraz

¶22

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.15 10:10:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rampyari @ Budhrani v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampyari @ Budhrani v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Deep Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others