GUDDU Vs. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in these proceedings, questions denial of compassionate appointment to her, by the respondents. She seeks a direction for consideration of her case, and a consequential direction to the respondents to permit her to reside in the quarters presently under her occupation.

(2.) The petitionerâ s husband, one Chiranjvir, had worked with the Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Hospital (hereafter compendiously referred to as â the respondentsâ ) for over 9 years, when he died on 25th October, 1998. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, and retention of the quarters allotted to her late husband; she was asked to submit evidence in proof of her age. It is alleged that she made repeated attempts to secure employment, and was made to wait on several occasions; however all her requests were unsuccessful. The petitioner also alleges that illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded. She has produced copies of several representations given to the respondents. It is averred that a â no dues certificateâ was issued on 3-12- 1998. The petitioner does not have anyone to support her, and has no means of livelihood. She continued to occupy the quarters occupied by her. However, the respondents did not decide her request for compassionate appointment; on the other hand, on 9th December, 1999, an order was issued, directing that amounts payable to her on account of terminal and pension benefits, ought to be adjusted against the license fee/ damages payable for occupation of the quarters. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner approached this court, under Article 226, claiming relief.

(3.) The respondents have filed three affidavits during course of the proceedings. Initially, they justified their position, and also the deductions effected from amounts payable to her, on the ground that arrears of license fee for occupation of the quarters was recovered from her pension and other amounts. The court had directed, by order dated 13th December, 2004 that the petitioner should be medically examined for determination of her age. That was done, and eventually a report was furnished to court. As per the report, the petitionerâ s age was 46 years.