The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition as not maintainable for being a second petition on the same cause of action, which was brought without disclosing a prior order.
The petitioner was denied relief by dismissal of the petition as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195462
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13791 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kumari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suyash Agarwal
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ-A No. 7826 of 2021, claiming
the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.2.2021 passed by respondent no. 4, under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2/4 to provide compassionate appointment on the post of Group-D or on any post under respondent No. 4, under Dying-in=Harness Rules, 1974, without any further delay.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2/4 to provide all arrears of post death arrears and pension relating to her mother to the petitioner."
2. This writ petition was heard and decided by this Court vide order
dated 05.08.2021 in the following terms:
“The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner was wrongly rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner was married daughter which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P and another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21.
This Court had called for instructions which are taken on record. The instructions specifically state that one of the daughters of the deceased Smt. Babuni (respondent no. 5 herein) has already been granted compassionate appointment and, in fact, five of the sisters including the petitioner had given No Objection Certificate for appointment in favour of respondent no. 5. He further places reliance upon Rule 7 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974 with regard to the other contention of non-payment of retiral dues, the stand taken by the respondent is that the retiral dues have been equally paid to the heirs of the deceased and the following amount has been paid to the petitioner.
| Sl | Dependen | Account | Name | Address | IFSC | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | t/name | No. | of | Code | ||
| of daughter |
Bank | |||||
| 4. | Smt. Raj | 3043881 | S.B.I | Mohalla | SBIN0003 | 95505/ |
| Kumari | 4 | . | Purarani | 221 | - |
| Devi, w/ | Mubarakp |
|---|---|
| o | ur, |
| Sangram | Azamgarh |
In view of stand taken by the respondent and the fact that the one of the legal heirs of the deceased has already been granted appointment, no case for interference is made out in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall be liberty to approach this Court, if the amount of Rs. 95505/-, as indicated above, has not been received"
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner under the dying-in-harness rules.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to pay the funds, pension gratuity, G.P.F. and arrears of service to the petitioner."
Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Deepak
2 of 2
Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a new writ petition is maintainable when it is a second petition on the same cause of action suppressing the fact of an earlier decided petition.
Whether the non-disclosure of an earlier decided petition on the same facts renders the current petition not maintainable.
Smt. Raj Kumari
State of U.P.
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
