# Rampyari @ Budhrani v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2830 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rampyari-budhrani-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49158
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Live in partner's right -
Petitioner was married to someone else -
Though the marriage was not dissolved,
she claimed herself to be wife of deceased
- Claim of compassionate appointment,
how far considerable - Held, a legally
wedded wife of one person may never be
heard
to
claim
compassionate
appointment against death of her live in
partner,
during
subsistence
of
her
marriage - Citizens may exercise their
free choice in these matters i.e. to live
1 All. Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
such life as may not infringe with law yet,
the Court can only recognise the legal
right and act to protect the same -
Though the petitioner's life and liberty
was protected despite her choice to live
outside her marriage, at present the law
may not recognise the right of the
petitioner to compassionate appointment
for reason of death of her live in partner.
(Para 10 and 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
down that in view of the Notification dated
November 17, 1979, the Regulations of
1975 have not been withdrawn and
continue to regulate the service conditions
of employees of the PCDF, but the control
and the jurisdiction of the Board no longer
extends to the PCDF. It is this removal of
the jurisdiction of the Board under the
Regulations vis-a-vis the PCDF by the
Notification

26. The learned Single Judge has
proceeded to opine on the premise that
since the Regulations of 1975 have been
held to apply to the PCDF by the learned
Single Judge in Vishwanath Gupta-III
and the Division Bench in Vishwanath
Gupta-I, the impugned order of dismissal
without compliance with Regulation 87,
that is to say, without obtaining prior
concurrence of the Board is bad. We are
afraid that this is not at all so.

27. Upon a careful reading of the
Notification dated March 4, 1972 and the
subsequent Notification dated November
17, 1979, we are of opinion that it is not
that the Regulations of 1975 have ceased to
apply to the PCDF, but it is indubitable that
the PCDF is no longer under the purview of
the Board as regards recruitment, training
and disciplinary control of its employees
after the issue of the Notification dated
November 17, 1979. Therefore, in our
considered opinion, while the Regulations
of 1975 would continue to apply to the
PCDF, Regulation 87, which mandates
prior concurrence of the Board before any
of the specified major penalties, in subclauses (e), (f) and (g) of Clause (i) of
Regulation 84 are imposed, would not be
applicable to the PCDF. The PCDF would
not at all be required to obtain the prior
concurrence of the Board before imposing
any of the specified major penalties.

28. No other point has been argued
before us to support the judgment of the
learned Single Judge.

29. In our opinion, therefore, the
impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge cannot be sustained.

30. This Special Appeal is allowed,
the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge is set aside and
the writ petition dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 468
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 2830 of 2020

Rampyari @ Budhrani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Sri Ram Naresh
Singh, Sri Sarvesh Singh, Sri Shiv Datta
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Live in partner's right -
Petitioner was married to someone else -
Though the marriage was not dissolved,
she claimed herself to be wife of deceased
- Claim of compassionate appointment,
how far considerable - Held, a legally
wedded wife of one person may never be
heard
to
claim
compassionate
appointment against death of her live in
partner,
during
subsistence
of
her
marriage - Citizens may exercise their
free choice in these matters i.e. to live
1 All. Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
such life as may not infringe with law yet,
the Court can only recognise the legal
right and act to protect the same -
Though the petitioner's life and liberty
was protected despite her choice to live
outside her marriage, at present the law
may not recognise the right of the
petitioner to compassionate appointment
for reason of death of her live in partner.
(Para 10 and 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shive Datta Yadav
learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.
Santosh Shukla learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed
today, taken on record. Also, learned
Standing Counsel has produced original
service book of the deceased Ram Sajivan.
Original marriage agreement between the
petitioner and Ram Sajivan dated 24.6.2006
has also been produced by learned counsel
for the petitioner.

3. Present petition has been filed to
challenge the order dated 10.8.2019 passed
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Fatehpur. Thereby the said authority has
rejected the application for grant of
compassionate appointment made by the
petitioner arising from the death of Ram
Sajivan who died in harness on 20.1.2014
while working on the post of Peon at
Sukhdev Inter College, Khaga, Fatehpur.

4. In rejecting the application made
by the petitioner, the District Inspector of
Schools, Fatehpur has considered the
affidavit of the mother of the deceased
namely Phoolmati dated 12.8.2014 wherein
she had stated, her son Ram Sajivan died a
bachelor. Also, service book of the
deceased did not support the claim made by
the petitioner that she was the married wife
of the deceased.

5. In the present proceedings, learned
counsel for the petitioner has first relied
upon a compromise stated to have been
arrived between the petitioner and the
sisters of the deceased Ram Sajivan namely
Ms. Durga Devi, Ms. Sharda Devi and Ms.
Lakshmi. It is dated 11.7.2018. It may be
noted,
the
mother
of
the
deceased
Phoolmati died on 13.1.2017. Therefore,
though
her
name
appears
in
the
compromise deed, she is not a signatory
thereto.

6. Upon such facts being noted,
learned counsel for the petitioner was
required to file supplementary affidavit to
bring on record the certificate to establish
the occurrence of death of Smt. Phoolmati.
Further,
original
of
the
Marriage
Agreement (relied upon by the petitioner),
was also required to be produced.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
parties and having perused the record, it
now transpires, petitioner was first married
to one Hori Lal, as has been stated in
paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit,
filed today. During subsistence of that
marriage and without its legal dissolution,
petitioner claims to have entered into a
relationship with the deceased Ram Sajivan
pursuant whereto they entered into a
written agreement described as Marriage
Agreement. It is dated 24.6.2006.

8. Original document produced
today indicates, the same has been signed
by one in the name Ram Sajivan and the
other in the name Budhrani. That
document does not mention any alias of
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the said Budhrani. It describes that person
as daughter of Om Prakash. Signatures
affixed to that Marriage Agreement is
also in the writing-Budhrani. Then,
though the document has been prepared
on 24.6.2006, it has been stamped on
26.9.2005. Also, grave doubt exists as to
the identity of the petitioner being the
same person who may have entered into
Marriage Agreement with the deceased. It
is so because the signatory of that
document did not describe herself as
Budhrani @ Ram Pyari. She also did not
disclose her parentage in that document.

9. Present petition has been filed by
Ram Pyari @ Budhrani. Affidavit thereto
is of one Ram Pyari. It does not disclose
any alias of the said Ram Pyari. Identity
of said Ram Pyari has been claimed on
the strength of a photostat copy of Voter
ID Card. It also describes the holder of
that card to be Ram Pyari and not Ram
Pyari @ Budhrani. Facts, noted above
may themselves prevent the Court from
granting any relief under Article 226 of
the Constitution to such a person about
whose identity there exists grave doubt.

10. Yet, a more serious objection
exists-the
petitioner
admits
to
have
married one Hori Lal in the year 2006 and
further that that marriage was never
legally
dissolved.
Being
Hindu,
by
religion, it is difficult to accept the status
of the petitioner as the legally wedded
wife of the deceased Ram Sajivan, during
lifetime of Hori Lal. No fact disclosure
has been made as to the identity of Hori
Lal or his current status. A legally wedded
wife of one person may never be heard to
claim compassionate appointment against
death of her live in partner, during
subsistence of her marriage.

11. Citizens may exercise their free
choice in these matters i.e. to live such
life as may not infringe with law yet, the
Court can only recognise the legal right
and act to protect the same. Thus, though
the petitioner's life and liberty was
protected despite her choice to live
outside her marriage, at present the law
may not recognise the right of the
petitioner to compassionate appointment
for reason of death of her live in partner.
That law being Rule driven, the petitioner
is found not covered by any category of
heirs
of
the
deceased
entitled
to
compassionate appointment. The Service
Book of the deceased also does not
include the name of the petitioner as a
family member of the deceased.

12. For the reasons noted above,
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

13. The original service book of the
deceased has been returned to the learned
Standing
Counsel
and
the
original
Marriage Agreement has been returned to
learned counsel for the petitioner after
due perusal.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 3042 of 2015

Rajendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Som Kartik, Sri Piyush Mishra