GEETA KANWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an unfortunate dispute between the petitioner and her own daughter, who was granted compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 on furnishing of an undertaking in writing in terms of Rule 5(2) of the said Rules that she will properly maintain the petitioner and other family members, who were dependent on the deceased government servant. She has, however, now refused to maintain the petitioner. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is widow of the deceased government servant Govind Dan Singh, who was serving as a Cook in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC) with the government and died while serving on 30.12.1999. At that time, apart from petitioner widow, there were four daughters of the petitioner including the respondent No. 4. Petitioner proposed the name of respondent No. 4-Jatan Kanwar for being appointed on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 4-Jatan Kanwar filed an affidavit with the undertaking that she would properly maintain the petitioner and other family members. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as LDC and at that time, she was unmarried. So long as respondent No. 4-Jatan Kanwar was living with petitioner and other family members, there was no problem, but after she got married in 2007, she started avoiding to maintain the petitioner and other family members. Petitioner therefore submitted an application to the competent authority for maintenance. On application of the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued by the department to the respondent No. 4 on 9.5.2011 and she was advised to maintain dependents of the deceased government servant. Inquiry in this matter was entrusted to one Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Officer on Special Duty and one Shri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, Assistant Accounts Officer on 23.5.2011. The dispute between the parties remained unresolved. It was thereafter that the Director and Deputy Secretary, Language and Library Department issued a show cause notice to the respondent No. 4 on 17.6.2011 calling upon her to properly maintain the dependants of the deceased government and advised that if in future same complaint is received, her appointment may be cancelled. The respondent No. 4 then agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month to the petitioner, but when she defaulted, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Shri Amit Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent No. 4 was to pay amount of Rs. 2,000 per month to petitioner, but then further dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner lodged a false criminal case against respondent No. 4 that she has sold their ancestral house and has retained the money with her. However, the fact is that respondent No. 4 has purchased a house out of her own funds. The respondent No. 4 was granted anticipatory bail on that ground.

(3.) Shri Amit Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has argued that respondent No. 4 spent her savings on the marriage of one elder sister and one younger sister and on her own marriage. The youngest daughter of the petitioner has now secured appointment with Allahabad Bank as Officer, who is still unmarried. There is, therefore, no need for the respondent No. 4 to now maintain the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner is in receipt of Rs. 6,555 per month as family pension and even the agricultural ancestral land measuring 98 bighas has been retained by the petitioner, therefore, she could very well maintain herself out of the income received from said agriculture land.