RAJ KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's step mother namely late Ms. Prema Tiwari was serving as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Reyuni, Majhkhali, Ranikhet, District Almora. She died during her service period. After the death of his mother, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. Respondent Department rejected the claim of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that as per High School Certificate, petitioner's date of birth is 30.06.1977 while as per school record, Ms. Prema Tiwari, joined her duties on 01.07.1977 after summer vacation and she did not avail any maternity leave. Therefore, petitioner cannot be son of Ms. Prema Tiwari. Against the order of District Education Officer (Basic) Almora, petitioner approached this Court stating therein that his date of birth is 03.10.1976. This Court, after going through record, vide order 19.08.2002 held the petitioner guilty under section 340 CrPC, 1973 and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. No appeal was filed against the order dated 19.08.2002, therefore, it attained finality. On 24.08.2002, alleged appointment letter was issued pursuant to which, petitioner sought joining. On this, District Education Officer (Basic), Almora issued direction to Assistant Education Officer (Basic) Tarikhet, Almora to lodge an FIR, as he has not issued any appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, an FIR was lodged. Petitioner was acquitted in the said case by giving benefit of doubt. Petitioner approached the respondent Department to give him joining, as he has been acquitted. District Education Officer once again rejected the claim of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents and perused the record.

(3.) Though petitioner was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate by giving benefit of doubt in procuring the alleged appointment letter dated 24.08.2002 but this does not establish that the said appointment letter dated 24.08.2002 is genuine. District Education Officer has already denied its sanctity. When there is no appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner, therefore, no relief, as sought in the writ petition, can be granted by this Court.