Dismissed

Rinki Bhaskar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/1573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the termination of a Homeguard employee who appointed under compassionate grounds. The court held that the petitioner suppressed the fact of her previous marriage and lack of a divorce decree to secure employment as an unmarried daughter, rendering the appointment invalid and the termination maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merits as the termination order was valid due to suppression of material facts.

Rinki Bhaskar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19407

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1573 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rinki Bhaskar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned termination order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2/District Commandant, Homeguards, District Bahraich and to further direct the respondent no. 2 to restore the services of the petitioner on the post of Women Platoon, Homeguard.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner Late Ram Jiyawan had expired on 16.08.2016 while working on the post of Homeguard Swyam Sewak. Initially the elder brother of the petitioner namely Santosh Kumar, who is son of the deceased employee moved an application on 20.07.2017 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short 'the Rules, 1974') but he was not found medically fit to be appointed and his claim was rejected.

¶9

It is further submitted that after the rejection of the candidature of the brother of the petitioner, the petitioner being the unmarried daughter moved an application along with an afÏdavit dated 03.03.2020 for her appointment under the Rules, 1974 and after being found medically fit and eligible, she was appointed on 30.09.2020 on the post of Homeguard.

¶10

It is further submitted that a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding her marital status i.e. she was married at the time of moving of application for compassionate appointment by giving a false afÏdavit that she is unmarried and in pursuance thereof, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her services were terminated by impugned order dated 20.11.2023.

¶11

It is further submitted that as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 which has been amended after the judgment/order of this Court, the married daughters now have been included to grant the benefit of appointment under the Rules, 1974

¶12

and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment/order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 18566 of 2021 (Neelam Devi vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) and the judgment dated 15.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 10928 of 2020 (Manjul Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.), wherein it has been held that now the married daughters are also included in the definition under Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules, 1974, hence, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed under the Rules, 1974.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had given a false afÏdavit that she was unmarried to obtain the appointment under the Rules, 1974 by making material suppression, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent no. 2.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that at the time of moving an application on 03.03.2020, the petitioner had also filed an afÏdavit and in para 3 of the said afÏdavit, she had stated on oath that she is unmarried and is dependent upon her father. The said para of the afÏdavit has been quoted in the impugned order, which has neither been denied nor disputed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. When the opportunity was given to the petitioner to give explanation against the complaint as mentioned above, the petitioner had come with a case that her marriage was solemnized in the year 2013 and on 30.12.2015, the divorce had taken place and she is having two children after the divorce dated 30.12.2015 from her husband and filed a notorized divorce on stamp paper of Rs. 10/-.

¶15

On being asked by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the divorce decree passed by the competent court of law, the counsel for the petitioner has shown his inability to produce the same as the divorce was taken on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/-, hence it is an admitted case that there was no divorce decree at the time of moving an application for compassionate appointment and her husband was staying with her or she was staying with her husband and out of the wedlock, she is having two children after the alleged divorce dated 30.12.2015.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after the judgments of this Court, as referred above in the cases of Neelam Devi (supra) and Manjul Srivastava (supra) where the married daughters have been included in the definition of dependents/family members under Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules, 1974 and in pursuance thereof, the amendment has been made in the Rules, 1974 in the month of December, 2021 which is subsequent to the application made by the petitioner on 03.03.2020 at that

¶17

time under the Rules, the married daughters were not included in the definition of the family of the deceased Government Servant. If the petitioner had shown herself as married, she would not have been appointed under the Rules, 1974. She seems to be quite aware of this position. It is suppression and providing a wrong information intentionally being given that she is unmarried just to obtain the appointment under the Rules, 1974.

¶18

The judgments which have been relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Neelam Devi (supra) and Manjul Srivastava (supra) are not applicable in the present case as in those cases, the facts were different and there was no suppression or wrong information given by the petitioners of those writ petitions, hence the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, it is found to be not a fit case for interference in the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2/District Commandant, Homeguards, District Bahraich in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 Nitesh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rinki Bhaskar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki Bhaskar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Guard Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Charan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Fisheries U.P. and 2 Others

Lajjawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Alok Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag - I Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar and 34 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others