# Meena Devi & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1065
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-25
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1904 of 2013
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Ashok Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meena-devi-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-43074
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Compassionate
appointment-petitioner
admittedly living with her father-during
pendency of suit for restitution of
conjugal rights-husband of petitioner
died-held-neither she was dependent
upon income of her husband-nor living in
financial
crisis-Single
Judge
rightly
rejected
the
claim-appointment
on
compassionate ground can not be as
matter of right-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-7
Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, it is
clear that appellant was not dependent
upon her husband as she was living
separately which is established from
filing of the suit. It may also be pointed
out here that in a case of compassionate
appointment
ground
of
indigent
conditions of the family must be taken
into account and the dependants of the
deceased government servant have no
legal right to claim appointment on
compassionate ground as a matter of
right, rather such an appointment is an
exception
to
normal
mode
of
recruitment. She was neither dependent
upon the income of her husband nor
living in indigent circumstances. In our
opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity
in
the
impugned
judgment
and
compassionate appointment cannot be
granted merely because the appellant
was married to Navratan Kumar (since
deceased) without proving her indigency
and dependency upon him. Hence no
interference is called for.

## Text

3 All]. Meena Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1065
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 1904 of 2013

Meena Devi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Compassionate
appointment-petitioner
admittedly living with her father-during
pendency of suit for restitution of
conjugal rights-husband of petitioner
died-held-neither she was dependent
upon income of her husband-nor living in
financial
crisis-Single
Judge
rightly
rejected
the
claim-appointment
on
compassionate ground can not be as
matter of right-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-7
Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, it is
clear that appellant was not dependent
upon her husband as she was living
separately which is established from
filing of the suit. It may also be pointed
out here that in a case of compassionate
appointment
ground
of
indigent
conditions of the family must be taken
into account and the dependants of the
deceased government servant have no
legal right to claim appointment on
compassionate ground as a matter of
right, rather such an appointment is an
exception
to
normal
mode
of
recruitment. She was neither dependent
upon the income of her husband nor
living in indigent circumstances. In our
opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity
in
the
impugned
judgment
and
compassionate appointment cannot be
granted merely because the appellant
was married to Navratan Kumar (since
deceased) without proving her indigency
and dependency upon him. Hence no
interference is called for.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. We have heard Sri K.K. Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, learned
standing counsel, appearing for the StateRespondent and perused the record.

2. This special appeal has been
preferred challenging the validity and
correctness of judgment and order dated
30.09.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 6011 of 2012: Meena Devi &
another Vs. State of U.P. & others,
whereby
writ
petition
of
petitioners/appellants herein has been
dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
after
a
year
of
marriage
of
petitioner/appellant no. 1 with Navratan
Kumar (since deceased) a child was born
out of their wedlock. At that time the
husband and wife were living separately
and Original Suit No. 386 of 2008:
Navratan Kumar Vs. Smt. Meena Devi
before Principal Judge, Family Court,
Allahabad was pending for restitution of
conjugal rights. On 15.10.2009 due to
illness husband of appellant was admitted
in S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad where he
died. The appellant/petitioner applied for
her appointment on compassionate ground
and also submitted a representation in this
regard. When her representation remained
un-actioned she preferred writ petition no.
17662 of 2010 which was disposed of on
6.4.2010 with direction to respondent no.
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3 for deciding her representation by a
speaking order. After rejection of the
representation aforesaid, she preferred
writ petition no. 6011 of 2012 which too
was dismissed vide judgment and order
dated 30.9.2013. Aggrieved the appellant
has preferred the present appeal.

4. While dismissing the writ
petition, learned single judge has held
thus:

"1. Admittedly, the petitioner was
residing separately from the deceased
employee (Navratan Kumar) and there is a
dispute between them, for which they filed
Original Suit No.386 of 2008 (Navratan
Kumar Vs. Smt. Meena Devi) before
Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad
for restitution of conjugal rights. Neither the
petitioner was living with the deceased
employee nor she was dependent on
deceased employee inasmuch as, she has
had been maintaining herself of her own.

2. In these facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the fact that the
petitioner has been maintaining herself on
her own, I do not find any reason to direct
the respondent to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner.

3. In taking the aforesaid view I am
supported by a recent decision of the
Apex Court in MGB Gramin Bank Vs.
Chakrawarti Singh JT 2013 (12) SC 81.
After referring various authorities on the
subject including Umesh Kumar Nagpal
vs. State of Haryana and others , JT 1994
(3) SC 525, A. Umarani Vs. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies and others JT
2004(6) SC 110 and State Bank of India
and another Vs. Raj Kumar (2010) 11
SCC 661, the Court in para 13 of MGB
Gramin Bank (supra) observed as under:

"The
Court
considered
various
aspects of service jurisprudence and came
to the conclusion that as the appointment
on compassionate ground may not be
claimed as a matter of right nor an
applicant becomes entitled automatically
for appointment, rather it depends on
various other circumstances i.e. eligibility
and financial conditions of the family,
etc., the application has to be considered
in accordance with the scheme. In case
the Scheme does not create any legal
right, a candidate cannot claim that his
case is to be considered as per the
Scheme existing on the date the cause of
action had arisen i.e. death of the
incumbent
on the
post."
(emphasis
added)"

4. The writ petition lacks merits.
Dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
has assailed the impugned judgment on
the grounds that the appellant no. 1 is
legally wedded wife of late Navratan
Kumar upon whom she and her daughter
were wholly dependent, but due to some
family disputes she left the house of her
husband. However, this would not debar
her
from
claiming
compassionate
appointment.

6. Per contra, learned standing
counsel has supported the findings given
in the judgment impugned in this appeal
and
contends
that
appellant
had
admittedly left the house of her husband
within a year of marriage and was living
with her father who was taking care of her
and her child; hence she was not
dependent upon her late husband.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of record, it is
3 All]. Imtyaz Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1067
clear that appellant was not dependent
upon her husband as she was living
separately which is established from filing
of the suit. It may also be pointed out here
that
in
a
case
of
compassionate
appointment
ground
of
indigent
conditions of the family must be taken
into account and the dependants of the
deceased government servant have no
legal right to claim appointment on
compassionate ground as a matter of
right, rather such an appointment is an
exception to normal mode of recruitment.
She was neither dependent upon the
income of her husband nor living in
indigent circumstances. In our opinion,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and compassionate
appointment cannot be granted merely
because the appellant was married to
Navratan Kumar (since deceased) without
proving her indigency and dependency
upon him. Hence no interference is called
for.

8. For all the reasons stated above,
appeal is dismissed.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3029 of 2010

Imtyaz ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sanjay Tripathi, Sri R.R. Kushwaha, Sri
S.M.A. Abdy

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C. Section 401-Criminal RevisionScope of interference by Revisional Courtexplained-conviction u/s 326/452 IPCinjuries corroborated by prosecution story
contained as in FIR-no inconsistency
found-no interference called for-dismissed.

Held: Para-9 & 24
9. It is settled principle of law that the
revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as
the appellate jurisdiction and under the
former jurisdiction, the High Court is
required to exercise its powers where
there is material irregularity or manifest
error of law or procedure, or there is
misconception or misreading of evidence
or where the court below has failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has
exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and
perversely or where the facts admitted
or proved do not disclose any offence. As
a broad proposition, the interference of
revisional court may be justified in cases
(i)
where
the
decision
is
grossly
erroneous
(ii)
where
there
is
no
compliance with the provision of law (iii)
where the finding of fact affecting the
decision is not based on evidence on
record (iv) where the material evidence
of parties has not been considered (v)
where the court below has misread or
mis-appreciated the evidence on record
(vi) where the judicial discretion has
been exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

24. I have carefully examined the
medical reports of all the injured which
have been duly proved by Dr. Arya PW-3.
I need not burden this judgment by
reproducing the injury reports, as they
have been noted by the Courts below in
their respective judgments. The injuries
found on the person of the injured fully
corroborate the prosecution story as
contained
in
the
FIR
and
in
the
statements of witnesses of fact namely
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. Thus the direct
evidence
of
the
crime
is
fully
corroborated by the medical evidence
and there is no inconsistency therein,
rather they compliment each other.

Case Law discussed: