SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, HANUMANGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A sordid tale of the petitioners as depicted in the writ petition is that the sole bread winner of the family, Mr. Ramesh Singh, who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner, suddenly disappeared from this earth on fateful day of 17th November, 2000 leaving the entire family consisting of four persons including the petitioners in lurch. The petitioners, other family members, relatives, friends and the well -wishers made all sincere efforts to search Mr. Ramesh Singh but all these efforts proved abortive. In their attempt to search Mr. Ramesh Singh, the first petitioner lodged a report of his missing with SHO, Police Station Mundawar, Alwar on 18th April, 2001. Yet, again the petitioners made sincere endeavour to search Mr. Ramesh Singh by publishing a news -item in daily local newspaper dt. 25.04.2001, 27.04.2001 and 11.05.2001 respectively. However, all attempts made by the police authorities and the petitioners were in vain. After waiting for a long duration, the petitioners and other family members were totally disheartened and there remained no clue about survival of Mr. Ramesh Singh. In the interregnum period, certain developments took place and the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, where the petitioner was serving as class -IV employee issued a charge -sheet under Sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958') for his willful absence from duties. Although the said charge -sheet was never served upon Mr. Ramesh Singh, as he was not traceable, the respondent proceeded to dismiss him from services vide order dt. 20th of March, 2001 (Annex. 7) without holding a regular enquiry envisaged under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. In the writ petition, the petitioners have also averred that after waiting for a considerable period, they approached the respondent to allow family pension and other retiral benefits to the first petitioner and to offer appointment on compassionate grounds to second petitioner, however, their said requests were not acceded to by the respondent and the respondent asked them to produce certificate of civil death of Shri Ramesh Singh from a competent Court. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners were left with no option but to wait for seven long years for initiating the proceedings for seeking declaration from the competent Court about civil death of Shri Ramesh Singh and ultimately a civil suit at the behest of both the petitioners and two other legal heirs of Shri Ramesh Singh was laid before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mundawar, Alwar for seeking declaration about the civil death of Shri Ramesh Singh. The civil suit for declaration launched at the behest of the petitioners and other legal heirs of Shri Ramesh Singh was decreed by the civil Court, vide its judgment and decree dt. 23rd January, 2009, and the learned Civil Court finally declared the civil death of Shri Ramesh Singh. After passing of the decree by the civil Court, as per the version of the petitioners, yet again the respondent was called upon to grant retiral benefits to the first petitioner and to offer appointment on compassionate grounds to the second petitioner, but this time the respondent came out with yet another objection that for claiming retiral benefits, succession certificate is pre -requisite and they are required to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court. Acceding to the oral direction of the respondent, according to the petitioners, an attempt was made at their behest for obtaining succession certificate and a petition under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act of (sic) was laid before the Additional District Judge Kishangarhbas. During the pendency of the petition for issuance of succession certificate, as per the petitioners, the entire family of Shri Ramesh Singh faced great financial hardship and it became very difficult for the family to survive. It was in such compelling situations, according to the petitioners, the concerned Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was approached and on persuasion, a succession certificate was issued by him on 17.05.2008. To mitigate the financial hardship of the family, as per the second petitioner, he has again approached the respondent for offering him appointment on compassionate grounds, vide his application dt. 9th April, 2010, and alongwith the said application, said succession certificate was also enclosed. The application dt. 9th April, 2010 was rejected by the respondent on the ground that in the civil suit ex -parte decree was passed and the respondent -employer was not impleaded as party and an order to this effect was passed by the respondent on 15th April, 2010 (Annex. 13). Besides incorporating the aforementioned grounds for rejection, the respondent has also declined the prayer of the second petitioner for the reason that the application for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted belatedly i.e. after expiry of 90 days.

(2.) THE petitioners, in the writ petition, have also stated that the second petitioner made endeavour to obtain certain informations from the respondent under Right to Information Act by his application dt. 15.04.2010 and with his application, the requisite fee was also enclosed but the application was rejected by the respondent solely on the technical ground that it was not in the prescribed proforma. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner again approached the respondent for obtaining requisite information under Right to Information Act by sending his application through registered post with the requisite formalities on 9th June, 2010. With all these averments, the petitioners have prayed for annulment of order dt. 15th April, 2010 and the order dt. 22nd March, 2001 and has also sought a direction against the respondent to allow the first petitioner pension and other retiral benefits and consider the application of the second petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(3.) MR . Himanshu Shrimali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would urge that the order dt. 22.03.2001 (Annex. 7) has been passed without following the due procedure as envisaged under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, and therefore, the said order is non -est in the eye of law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners for proving allegation of willful absence from the duty of its employee, Shri Ramesh Singh, the respondent has not conducted regular enquiry. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of factual scenario in the instant case the allegation of willful absence of the delinquent employee is totally farce inasmuch as the employee has not remained absent from his duty willfully but for the reasons which were beyond his/anyone's comprehension. Mr. Shrimali further contends that considering the subsequent events and passing of decree about civil death of Shri Ramesh Singh by a competent Court, the order (Annex. 7) has lost its scantily and significance for all practical purposes. Thus, the substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said order cannot be cited as an impediment for granting reliefs to the petitioners as prayed for in the writ petition.