ASHA RANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought initially a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give her compassionate appointment in place of her husband Shyam Veer Singh under Dying-in-harness Rules. But subsequently a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.6.2006 passed by Assistant General Manager of Corporation contained in Annexure-CA-2 of the counter affidavit and Annexure-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of amendment application, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected, is also sought for.

(3.) The relief sought in the writ petition rests on facts that the husband of petitioner Late Shyam Veer Singh while working as Messenger/Sandesh Wahak in the District Office of Food Corporation of India, Moradabad has died on 11.10.2002 while in service. He left behind him the petitioner as widow and his three daughters and two sons i.e. Sri Anil Kumar Singh and Sri Amit Kumar Singh as his heirs and also his old and sick mother. It is stated that both two sons of petitioner are still unemployed and the family of the petitioner is totally on the verge of starvation as no body in the family is earning hand and there is no money for the treatment of the old mother of her late husband. After the death of Shyam Veer Singh the petitioner gave her consent for compassionate appointment of her son Amit Kumar Singh under Dying-in-harness Rules and as such an application was made for such appointment on behalf of her aforesaid son on 26.12.2002 as class IV employee in the department. Later on under frustration, the conduct of Amit Kumar Singh towards the family and the petitioner became very bad and he indulged in bad activities as he was not appointed under dying in harness rules by the respondent. At this point of time the petitioner realized that even if the son of the petitioner gets compassionate appointment in place of her husband, the sole purpose of providing such appointment will not be fulfilled as her son was no more loyal to the family as well as to the petitioner and as such the family of the deceased will not be benefited on such appointment. Then the petitioner gave application dated 23.8.2004 for her own appointment to the respondent no.2 in place of her late husband. A photostat copy of such application dated 23.8.2004 is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.