MADHUR NAWANI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner Mr. Madhur Nawani has come up before the Court seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun on the report of the Three -Members Committee of the District Court. He has further sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground keeping in view his eligibility. The brief facts, as have been adverted during the course of arguments and in the averments, are that one Mr. Om Prakash Nawani, a Class III employee in the District Court, Dehradun, passed away on 3.4.2012. His son Madhur Nawani (Petitioner) moved an application dated 2.6.2012 for his appointment under the dying in harness rules. A Three -Members Committee of judicial officers led by the Fist Additional District Judge, Dehradun was constituted to consider the matter and make its recommendations. Such Committee, vide its report dated 27.8.2012, did not recommend the case of the petitioner for appointment and so the learned District Judge, Dehradun approved such negative report of that Committee and thus the appointment was denied to the petitioner. As regards the gratuity, GPF and other funds of the deceased, it was directed that his legal heirs may apply for the succession certificate before the competent court. This so happened because during the enquiry by the Committee, it was found that the first wife of petitioner's father, namely, Smt. Madhu Nawani, died on 5.9.2011 and, at the time of death, petitioner's father used to reside with petitioner's mother Smt. Prem Lata Nawani, who is the second wife of the deceased. Petitioner claims himself to be born out of the wedlock of Smt. Prem Lata Nawani and Om Prakash Nawani decades before during the subsistence of first marriage of Om Prakash Nawani with Smt. Madhu Nawani.

(2.) It was submitted that when the petitioner's application was not favourably considered, then he moved a representation to Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court on 22.10.2012 and thereafter moved another representation dated 2.2.2013, but such representations have not been taken into consideration, hence of no avail.

(3.) In the service record of the deceased Om Prakash Nawani, although the name of Smt. Madhu Nawani was mentioned, but when this son (petitioner) was born, then in the nomination column, the letter "R" was added after the word "Madhu" to make it "Madhur", which is the name of petitioner; and for showing the relationship, the word "wife" was cut by drawing a line and another word "son" was written instead. So, this interpolation in the service record of the deceased, as found by the Committee, made his case more weak for such appointment.