The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition held that unless a divorced daughter is able to establish that she was dependent on her father before his death, she will not be entitled to compassionate appointment after her father death.
A Single Bench of Justice J.J Munir passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Akhtari Khatoon.
The petitioner’s father, the late Nasir Ahmad, was a Centrifugal Mechanic in the employ of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (the Corporation), and last posted in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Phase-III, Malviya Road, Basti.
The petitioner was married to one Nisar Ahmad, who is said to have divorced her through a Talaqnama dated 01.01.2008, pronouncing a Talaq upon his wife, in accordance with the Shariat Law, applicable to parties.
The divorce, according to the Talaqnama was pronounced in the presence of two competent witnesses. After the petitioner’s divorce, it is her case that she came back to her father’s house at Village Tilauli, Post Sohnaag, District Deoria and has been living there since January, 2008. A copy of the certificate of residence dated 12.04.2010 issued by the Deputy Collector on behalf of the Collector is on record.
The petitioner says that she is the only legal heir of the late Nasir Ahmad and for the said reason, has staked claim to a compassionate appointment.
It is also said that for the same reason, she has applied for the payment of her father’s retiral dues vide a representation dated 21.09.2010. The respondents directed the petitioner to produce a succession certificate issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction, entitling her to the dues.
Accordingly, the petitioner moved the District Judge, Deoria for the grant of a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioner’s petition for succession was registered as Succession Case and assigned to the Additional District Judge, Deoria.
The Additional District Judge granted a succession certificate in the petitioner’s favour, holding her entitled to receive from the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Basti, gratuity in the sum of Rs 4,02,501/-, leave encashment in the sum of Rs 84,159/-, an ex gratia sum of Rs.30,000/-, besides dues on account of GPF in the sum of Rs 1,73,559/-, totalling a figure of Rs 6,90,219/-.
The petitioner points out that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division Phase-I, District Basti, sought legal opinion in the matter and the Corporation’s Counsel at Basti vide his opinion dated 31.12.2014, opined that all the documents produced by the petitioner have been verified from the Civil Court at Deoria as well as the Collectorate, which are genuine. It was further opined that the petitioner is entitled to all dues on account of the deceased employee’s services, which she claims.
It is the petitioner’s case that in order to delay processing of her claim for compassionate appointment, the Executive Engineer last mentioned sought information once again vide letter dated 21.03.2018, addressed to the petitioner, to the effect if the petitioner made her claim for compassionate appointment within five years of death of the employee, and, secondly, if the Talaqnama produced has been authenticated or verified by an institution, recognized by the Government of India or the State Government, or established by the said Governments.
The petitioner said that she has the liability of three unemployed sons on her shoulders and there is no other source of income for the family to survive.
The petitioner further said that for one she is entitled to receive post-retrial dues on account of her father’s services, a fact authenticated by orders made by the Additional District Judge granting a succession certificate in her favour.
She also said that she is entitled to a compassionate appointment, inasmuch as by virtue of the law now declared, ‘married daughters’ are also entitled to compassionate appointment under Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Accordingly, the petitioner has moved the Court, seeking family pension for herself on account of her deceased father’s services and also a direction to the respondents to offer her a compassionate appointment.
The Court observed that,
It appears that out of the claims directed to be decided by the Court by order dated 21.10.2019, the respondents have paid post retiral dues on account of the petitioner’s father’s services, authorized by the succession certificate dated 27.07.2014, issued by the Additional District Judges, Deoria.
The directions carried in the Court’s order dated 21.10.2019 about consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and her entitlement to receive family pension, has decidedly been observed in breach in the sense that the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Phase-III, Basti has not passed any reasoned and speaking orders, deciding the petitioner’s claim for the grant of family pension or compassionate appointment, as ordered by the Court.
There is an averment in the petition, specifically to the effect that the orders of the Court dated 21.10.2019, passed in Writ, directing the Executive Engineer aforesaid to pass orders on the petitioner’s claim for the grant of family pension as well as compassionate appointment, has been knowingly flouted.
The Court opined that in the circumstances, the respondents were perfectly justified in asking the petitioner to produce evidence of her claimed divorce by a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction, or some dependable evidence about it. If the factum of divorce is not believable, the petitioner cannot be regarded as dependent on the deceased at all. Still, taking the principle that she is eligible on assumption, if it was the petitioner’s case fully pleaded and established that the deceased left behind him his widow and minor children, whom the petitioner was willing to support, there might have been a case worth consideration, of course, subject to be relevant rule being struck down or read down in accordance with law.
But, that is not the case here, because the petitioner has not pleaded the full particulars of the deceased’s dependents, except saying that she bears the liability of three unemployed sons on her shoulders. It is not said by even as much as a hint as to who are the sons. Whether they are sons of the deceased or the petitioner’s sons, is not at all clear. If they are the deceased’s sons, their ages and competence to apply for themselves ought to have been disclosed in order to ascertain whether it was necessary for the petitioner to be offered a compassionate appointment in order to support the deceased’s sons, who would qualify as his dependents. If the reference is to the petitioner’s sons, they are certainly not the deceased’s dependents and to support them, the petitioner cannot stake her claim to compassionate appointment on account of her father’s demise in harness, the Court said.
“Besides the above facts, the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition shows that she is now 50 years of age. At this age, if she can be granted an appointment at all, compassionate or otherwise, by the respondents, has to be answered against her. The reason is for one that she would no longer be eligible for appointment in terms of the maximum age of prescribed. The other is that by this time, it would be assumed that she has managed to find her way in life and settled down, where the deceased’s demise in harness has not destituted her.
So far as the other claim about the family pension is concerned, the respondents have denied it saying that the petitioner is not eligible under the Rules to receive family pension on account of services rendered by the deceased. It is for the petitioner to establish under what rule about pension and family pension, she is eligible. Not a word has been said in the writ petition or the rejoinder affidavit, except that it was paid for some time and then stopped. The right to receive both pension and family pension has to flow from some statute, statutory instrument or rules. Nothing of that kind has been pointed out by the petitioner in order to entitle her to receive family pension for her father’s service. This part of the petitioner’s claim is, therefore, also untenable.
In the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that no mandamus can be issued to the respondents either to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment or for the grant of family pension on account of her deceased father’s services”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.