# S.L. Umrawo v. Sachiv/ Mahaprabandh ak Fatehpur Distt. Co. Bank Ltd. & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 45
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-l-umrawo-v-sachiv-mahaprabandh-ak-fatehpur-distt-co-bank-ltd-another-39404
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
45
Moreover, no foundation has been laid in the writ petition that the
show cause notice was not served upon him. A letter sent by
registered post is presumed to be served unless rebutted. Since the
petitioner has not been able to rebut it there is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of removal. The order passed by
respondents is liable to be maintained.

In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '.6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '.6(7+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI .

0DQRKDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
([HFXWLYH (QJLQHHU (OHFWULF 'LVWULEXWLRQ
.KDQG VW DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 'U $PEDU 1DWK 5DL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
6KUL 630HKURWUD

'\LQJ LQ KDUQHVV 5XOHV UXOH DQG FRQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
$UWLFOH DSSRLQWPHQW RQ FRPSDVVLRQDWH JURXQGHOGHVW VRQ
OLYLQJ VHSDUDWHO\ WKH \RXQJHU VRQ ZDV JLYHQ DSSRLQWPHQW DIWHU
GXH YHULILFDWLRQ PDGH XQGHU UXOH RI WKH $FW WKH HOGHVW VRQ LV
OLYLQJ VHSDUDWHO\ RU QRW KHOG GLVSXWHG TXHVWLRQ RI IDFW FDQQRW EH
GHFLGHG E\ WKLV &RXUW
'\LQJ LQ +DUQHVV 5XOHV ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG WR HQDEOH WKH EHUHDYHG
IDPLO\ WR VDYH LWVHOI IURP GHVWLWXWLRQ 7KH LQWHUHVW RI WKH ZLGRZ DQG
WKH RWKHU PHPEHUV DUH UHTXLUHG WR EH VHFXUHG ,I WKHUH LV D GLVSXWH
SDUWLFXODUO\ EHWZHHQ WKH ZLGRZ DQG RQH RI WKH VRQ LQ WKDW HYHQW
LQ YLHZ RI 5XOH LW LV WKH FODLP RI WKH ZLGRZ ZKRVH ZHOIDUH LV WR
EH JLYHQ SUHIHUHQFH $W WKH VDPH WLPH WKH ZHOIDUH RI WKH
PD[LPXP QXPEHU RI WKH PHPEHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKRVH
1999
------
S.L. Umrawo
 Vs.
Sachiv/
Mahaprabandh
ak Fatehpur
Distt. Co. Bank
Ltd. & another
------
V.M. Sahai, J.
1999
------
May, 6
46 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
ZKR DUH GHSHQGHQW RI WKH ZLGRZ DUH WR EH WDNHQ FDUH RI %RWK
5XOHV DUH WR EH UHDG WRJHWKHU 7KH PDWHULDOV SURGXFHG EHIRUH
WKLV &RXUW LQGLFDWHV WKDW VXFK FRQVLGHUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ PDGH DQG
WKDW WKH ZLGRZ DQG WKH VHFRQG VRQ LV QRW VXSSRUWLQJ WKH SHWLWLRQHU
DV DSSDUHQW IURP WKH IDFW WKDW 5DPHVK .XPDU KDV EHHQ DGGHG DV
UHVSRQGHQW QR DQG WKH ZLGRZ GLG QRW MRLQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DV
SHWLWLRQHU ZKLFK LV VXIILFLHQW LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKHUH LV D ULIW EHWZHHQ
WKH SHWLWLRQHU DQG WKH ZLGRZ DQG WKH RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH
IDPLO\>3DUD @

By the Court

1. The father of the petitioner died in harness in 19th August,
1996. The petitioner applied for employment on compassionate
ground on 9th October, 19996. Under the Dying in Harness Rules,
1974. It is alleged that the petitioner is the eldest son of his mother
and has two brothers. Since the appointment was not given, the
petitioner moved a writ petition being writ petition no. 21275 of
1998, which was disposed of on 7th July, 1998 by directing the
respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance
with law. The said representation was accordingly decided by an
order dated 22nd March, 1986, which is Annexure 4 to the writ
petition. This order has since been challenged by the petitioner on
the ground that instead of giving appointment to the petitioner, the
appointment has been proposed to be given to his younger brother
Ramesh Kumar. According to him, Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness
Rules provides that such employment would be available only to the
person who has applied for the same. Therefore, by reason of Rule 5,
the petitioner's brother Ramesh Kumar, who never applied for
employment, could not be given employment superseding the claim
of the petitioner who had applied for the same. Therefore, the
impugned order should be quashed and the respondents should be
directed to give appointment to the petitioner under the Dying in
Harness Rules.

2. Mr. S.P.Mehrotra counsel for the respondents opposed the
above contention raised by Dr. Ambar Nath Rai, counsel for the
petitioner relying on Rule 7 of the said Rules, wherein it has been
provided that while granting appointment , it is incumbent on the
employer to ascertain the suitability of the candidate having regard to
the welfare of the maximum number of the family members as well
as the widow. Relying on Annexure 3 to the writ petition, Mr.
Mehrotra points out that both the petitioner as well as Ramesh
1999
------
Manohar
 Vs.
Ex. Engineer
Electric
Distribution
Khan (1st ) . &
another
------
D.K. Seth, J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
47
Kumar were claiming the employment, which is indicated in
paragraph 1 of the said document. Where as in paragraph 2, it has
mentioned that the petitioner is the eldest son but the widow had
disagreed with the proposal for giving appointment to the petitioner
on the ground that the petitioner is married and is living separately
and he his no connection with the family and she was eager for the
appointment of Ramesh Kumar. Therefore, the decision to give
appointment to Ramesh kumar, is in commensurate with Rule 7 of
the said Rules,. Thus, according to him, there is no infirmity in the
order. According to him. Rule 5 cannot be read in isolation
irrespective of Rule 6. Rule 5 has to be read along with Rule 7. A
provision or principle of law cannot be interpreted bereft of the
context and in isolation. It has to be given full meaning having
regard to the contest and object and purpose as apparent from the
provision of law itself. On these grounds, Mr. Mehrotra contends that
the writ petition should be dismissed.

I have heard both the learned counsel at length.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is the eldest son. There is no
indication that the petitioner's brother Ramesh Kumar had ever
applied on the pleadings. But from Annexure 3, it appears that
Ramesh Kumar is also one of the claiments. Therefore in absence of
sufficient material, it is not possible to hold that Ramesh had never
applied for the post. At the same time, the widow had claimed that
the eldest son is living separately with his family and has no
connection with her family. It is a question of fact which this Court
cannot enter into. Then again Rule 7 requires the employer to
ascertain the suitability as well as to look at the welfare of the family
to ensure welfare to the maximum number of the members of the
family, particular the widow. As rightly contended by Mr. Mehrotra,
a statute has to be read as a whole. A provision cannot be interpreted
out of context or in isolation. It has to be interpreted having regard to
the entire scheme so that it farthens the object and purpose. The
Dying in Harness Rules were incorporated to enable the bereaved
family to save itself from destitution. The interest of the widow and
the other members are required to be secured. If there is a dispute
particularly between the widow and one of the son, in that event, in
view of Rule 5, it is the claim of the widow, whose welfare of the
maximum number of the members of the family, particularly those
who are dependent of the widow, are to be taken care of. Both Rules
5 & 7 are to be read together. Rule 5 is enabling provision by which
the obligation is created to give appointment to one of the member of
1999
------
Manohar
 Vs.
Ex. Engineer
Electric
Distribution
Khan (1st ) . &
another
------
D.K. Seth, J.
48 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
the family. But what should be the consideration for giving any such
appointment and what consideration should weigh with the employer
to give such appointment, are specified in Rule 7. Therefore, it is
open to the respondents to consider the case of such person, who
would best serve the purpose of the said Rules in terms of Rule 7.
The materials produced before this Court indicates that such
consideration has been made and that the widow and the second son
is not supporting the petitioner as apparent from the fact that Ramesh
Kumar has been added as respondent no. 4 and the widow did not
join the petitioner as petitioner, which is sufficient indication that
there is a rift between the petitioner and the widow and the other
members of the family.

4. Be that as it may, these are only presumptive. This Court
sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot go into the disputed question of fact
on the face of the record. The question being disputed and the same
having settled by respondents having regard to Rule 7of the said
Rules, I do not see any reason to interfere with the same.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.

Petition Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

%DQVKL /DO 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
8WWDU 3UDGHVK 6HFRQGDU\ (GXFDWLRQ
6HUYLFHV DQG RWKHUV
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 71 7LZDUL
 6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
 6KUL 33 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6KUL $. 6LQJK
 6KUL 6DW\D 3RRW 0HKURWUD
1999
------
July, 21