Dismissed

Gunjan Agnihotri v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Information and Pu

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024WRIA/3843/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged termination of petitioner's compassionate appointment as Junior Clerk due to concealed marital status. Court held that suppressing the fact she was married when unmarried status was required for eligibility under prevailing rules was intentional, making it not a fit case for interference. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order terminating petitioner's services is upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Gunjan Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3365

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3843 of 2014

¶4

Petitioner :- Gunjan Agnihotri Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Information And Pu Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Maurya,Devi Prasad Maurya

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2014 passed by respondent no. 2, terminating the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner while working on the post of District Information Officer, Jalaon (Urai) expired on 18.11.2010. After the demise of the father of the petitioner, Late Hitendra Kumar Agnihotri, the mother of the petitioner Mrs. Pushpa Agnihotri moved an application on 07.12.2010 for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred as the Rules, 1974) in favour of the petitioner, both being dependent upon her husband.

¶10

On the application and the affidavits given by the other family members including the present petitioner, the petitioner had been given appointment against the one vacant post of clerical grade of as Junior Clerk by order dated 05.02.2013.

¶11

It is further submitted that after the petitioner had joined some complaint was made that the petitioner was married daughter of the deceased at the time of making the application for appointment and she was not entitled as per Rule 5(c) of the Rules, 1974, the authorities have terminated the service of the petitioner after obtaining the explanation from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had concealed the material fact that she was married at the time of moving an application for appointment under the Rules, 1974 which amounted to supression of material information.

¶12

The Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner had not given any application showing herself as an unmarried daughter of the deceased. The application was moved by the mother of the petitioner and in her affidavit, the petitioner was shown as unmarried. The petitioner is not at fault for any wrong information given by her mother related to the petitioner.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was given appointment on the application of the mother of the petitioner and the affidavit filed by her mother dated 28.12.2010 by making an averment on oath that her daughter i.e. the petitioner is unmarried. The petitioner had never moved any application, the appointment was given on the application of the mother of the petitioner on her behalf.

¶14

It is further contended that the affidavit of the same date i.e. 28.12.2010 was submitted by the petitioner and even she had not disclosed that she was married and wife of Tarun Sharma, as she had given an affidavit as daughter of the deceased.

¶15

Learned State Counsel also contends that at the time of appointment of the petitioner under the Rules, 1974, the married daughter did not fall under the definition of Dependent of the deceased Government Servant though subsequently, the position has been changed. Now the married daughter is also included in the definition of the family but the issue in the present case is that there is a suppression of such material information and if the same would have been disclosed, the petitioner would have not been appointed, as per the rules prevailing at that time.

¶16

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, it is found that the issue which is relevant to be considered in the present case is that the suppression of such material information i.e. whether the petitioner was married or unmarried was relevant at the time of seeking appointment.

¶17

From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the position which emerges out in the present case in the year 2013 when the petitioner was appointed, the married daughter was not included in the definition of family of the deceased Government servant. If the mother of the petitioner or the petitioner herself shown her or herself as married, she would have not been appointed under the Rules, 1974, they seem 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 appointment under the Rules, 1974. The petitioner had also not disclosed in her affidavit

¶18

dated 28.12.2010 that she was married. The divorce decree was admittedly granted to the petitioner in the year 2012 i.e. much after the affidavit given by the petitioner.

¶19

The submission that the mother of the petitioner in her affidavit dated 28.12.2010 had shown the petitioner as unmarried was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, the said contention on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that the affidavit of the petitioner and her three brothers were of the same date.

¶20

In view of the facts and circumstances and discussion made herein above, it is found to be not a fit case for interference in the impugned order dated 23.05.2014 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶23

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

Gunjan Agnihotri v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Information and Pu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunjan Agnihotri v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Information and Pu

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

Rishabh Shukla Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Nawal Caretaker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Dhruv Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Kumar Singh Pno. No. 132280253 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sandeep Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Babadeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others