SHARDA DEVI SMT Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaurasia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a widow and whose husband Late Surajbali Ram was employed with the respondents as regular Class-IV employee died on 23rd May, 1999, has applied for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 before Respondent No. 1 on 15th October, 1999. The Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 1st December, 1999/4th January, 2000 informed the petitioner that his application for appointment has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on the ground that the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules can be made only to a person suitable for appointment. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition, the copy where of has been tagged as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition.

(3.) The respondents in the counter affidavit have taken a stand, as would be clear from the perusal of Paragraph 5, which says that initially the petitioner Smt. Sharda Devi filed an affidavit authorising her son-in-law with the request that he may be given appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules in place of her deceased husband and thereafter when no orders were passed upon it and no action were taken, she herself applied by means of application dated 15th October, 1999 that she may now be given appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 in place of her deceased husband which, as stated above, has been rejected by the order dated 1st December, 1999, which was later on communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 4th January, 2000. The respondents have state in the counter affidavit that it is not disputed that the petitioner is the only heir of the deceased husband, but since the petitioner has already been paid the amount of family pension, leave encashment, provident fund, insurance etc., which will conies to total of Rs. 1,37,922/-, as also prima facie several amounts mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, which the deceased would have been entitled after his retirement and therefore, the stand taken by the respondents are that taking into consideration the amounts paid or payable to the petitioner-deceased widow, it is not necessary to given her appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules.