# Smt. Geeta Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-04-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12197 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41090
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
Recruitment
Dependant
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules
1974-Daughter-in
law-claim
appointment on death of her father-in
law-husband of the claimant already
expired-rejection of claim on hypertechnical ground-that the daughter-in
law is not within the meaning of family
2 All] Smt. Geeta Singh V. State of U.P. and others
449
member-illegal
non
consideration
of
financial
crises-dire
need
of
employment-order impugned quasheddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para 9

In the present case, the family has no
source of income and as such it is in dire
need of some employment and source of
income. All these factors have been
ignored by the appropriate authorityrespondents and a hyper-technical view
has been taken in the matter while
rejecting
the
application
for
compassionate appointment. In view of
the above discussions, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
2006 (2) 1972, 2008 (2) ADJ 428 (D.B.), 2008
(2) ADJ 433 (DB)

## Text

448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
possession cannot be restored but we are
not going to accept this argument. Where
a decree-holder has been dispossessed
otherwise than in due course of law, he
can
get
possession
by
filing
an
application, under Order XXI Rule 32
C.P.C In Smt. Kasturi Devi and another
vs. Harbant Singh, AIR 2000 Punjab
and Haryana 271) and Nanda Vs. Ram
Dhan 2001, (1) Punjab LR 23 it has
been held that where judgement-debtor in
violation of decree has entered into
possession forcibly, civil court cannot sit
idle as a mere spectator. It has every
power to restore possession back to the
decree-holder. The civil court can refer
the
matter
to
the
police
for
implementation of decree. If any person
has been prohibited by the civil court
from doing a particular act, disobedience
on his part is actionable under the said
provision. The illustration added to the
aforesaid provision has clarified the
position. Now there is no doubt that the
civil court has every power to put the
decree-holder
in
possession
of
the
property in question which was subject
matter of dispute between the parties and
the judgement-debtor was restrained from
interfering with the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is allowed to
start fresh litigation in respect of same
property, on each and every instance of its
disobedience by the judgement-debtor,
there would be no end of litigation. Any
proceeding taken by the police or criminal
court at the instance of judgement-debtor
has no effect on the decree passed by the
civil court.

8. Thus, we are of the opinion that
the High Court cannot interfere in the
matter in dispute in this writ petition
because effective remedy has been
provided under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C.
for execution of decree for prohibitory
injunction.

9. As regard the direction to the
police authorities about registration of
case and submitting charge sheet on the
application of petitioner is concerned, she
has also got alternative remedy. If the
police has not registered the case on her
application against respondent no.4, she
can very well approach the Magistrate
concerned under section 156(3) Cr.P.C or
file complaint against him and the court
will take appropriate action in accordance
with law.

10. In view of above, this writ
petition is dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SHARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12197 of 2008

Smt. Geeta Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Niraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Recruitment
Dependant
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules
1974-Daughter-in
law-claim
appointment on death of her father-in
law-husband of the claimant already
expired-rejection of claim on hypertechnical ground-that the daughter-in
law is not within the meaning of family
2 All] Smt. Geeta Singh V. State of U.P. and others
449
member-illegal
non
consideration
of
financial
crises-dire
need
of
employment-order impugned quasheddirection for fresh consideration issued.

Held: Para 9

In the present case, the family has no
source of income and as such it is in dire
need of some employment and source of
income. All these factors have been
ignored by the appropriate authorityrespondents and a hyper-technical view
has been taken in the matter while
rejecting
the
application
for
compassionate appointment. In view of
the above discussions, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
2006 (2) 1972, 2008 (2) ADJ 428 (D.B.), 2008
(2) ADJ 433 (DB)

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

1. Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing counsel on behalf of the
respondents.

2. Learned Standing counsel, who
represents the respondents, was granted
one month's time to file a counter
affidavit, but no counter affidavit has
been filed. The petitioner has brought to
the notice of the Court various judgments
by which the controversy raised in this
petition "whether the daughter- in- law
who becomes a member of her husband's
family after marriage is included within
the definition of family of her father-inlaw" has been set at rest.

3. The reference of these judgments
are as follows:

Smt. Sanyogita Rai Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
2006
(2)
1972,
Zila
Panchayat
Kaushambi and another vs. Lalti Devi
and another-2008 (2) ADJ 428 (DB),
CMD, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
Lucknow and others Vs. Jitendra
Pratap Singh and another, 2008 ( 2 )
ADJ 433 ( DB).
4. It emerges from the record that
the petitioner Smt. Geeta Singh's fatherin-law, Anil Kumar Singh, who was
working
as
Assistant
Development
Officer (Co-operative) had died in harness
on 30.4.2007, leaving behind his wife
Smt. Naina Singh and daughter in-law,
Smt. Gita Sjngh. It is noteworthy that late
Anil Kumar Singh's son, namely, Shiv
Pratap Singh (husband of petitioner Smt.
Gita Singh) had died prior to his father
Anil Kumar Singh's death. Thus the
dependants of the family comprises of
two ladies, namely, Smt. Naina Singh w/o
the
deceased
employee
and
young
daughter-in-law, Smt. Gita Singh, having
three minor children and other members
to sustain in life. Wife of the deceased
employee-
Sri
Anil
Kumar
Singh
approached the concerned authorities i.e.
Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies,
U.P. Lucknow and District Assistant
Registrar of the same department seeking
compassionate
appointment
for
the
educated daughter-in-law to enable the
family to sustain. The young daughter-inlaw is having intermediate qualification
and is eligible for providing appropriate
employment in the department.

5. In the relevant documents relating
to payment of pensionary benefits, G.P.F.,
Gratuity etc., the petitioner, daughter-inlaw, has been shown as one of the
nominees of late Sri Anil Kumar Singh. It
appears that the matter was referred to the
State Government after submitting the
application by mother-in-law, Smt. Naina
Singh for appointment of the petitioner,
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
daughter-in-law of late Anil Kumar
Singh, which was rejected on the ground
that daughter-in-law cannot be treated to
be a family member of the deceased
employee. The daughter-in-law does not
become the family member according to
the definition clause of U.P. Recruitment
of Dependants of Government Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rule, 1974, as it has
not been included in the definition of the
family.

6. As per learned counsel for the
petitioner, the impugned order passed by
respondents
declining
to
provide
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner is wholly illegal and is against
the very spirit of the judgments rendered
by this Court, as indicated in the forgoing
part of this judgment and order.

7. A Division Bench of this Court
has held in the case of Zila Panchayat,
Kaushambi and another vs. Lalti Devi
and another, (supra) that daughter in law
who becomes a member of the family of
her husband has to be included in the
definition clause of the family of fatherin-law.

8. Similar view has also been
expressed in the judgment rendered by
this Court in the case Chairman/M.D.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow
vs. Jitendra Pratap Singh (Supra), in
which it has been held that if the person
who
is
claiming
compassionate
appointment is a needy person, then the
respondent-authority must consider the
case of such candidate sympathetically
and provide compassionate appointment
to such needy person.

9. In the present case, the family has
no source of income and as such it is in
dire need of some employment and source
of income. All these factors have been
ignored by the appropriate authorityrespondents and a hyper-technical view
has been taken in the matter while
rejecting
the
application
for
compassionate appointment. In view of
the above discussions, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
8.1.2008 passed by respondent no.2 and
order
dated
31.1.2008
passed
by
respondent no.3 are hereby quashed.
However, in the interest of justice, the
matter
is
remanded
back
to
the
respondents to take fresh decision in the
matter in the light of the judgments cited
above which shall be produced by the
petitioner before the appropriate authority
by supplying photo copies of the
judgments and appropriate orders shall be
passed within two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order before the respondents.

11. Certified copy of this judgment
and order shall be submitted before
respondent no.3 and photo copies of the
order may be sent to respondent nos.1 and
2 enabling them to take appropriate action
in the matter within the stipulated period.
If the petitioner is found suitable, she
shall
be
provided
compassionate
appointment under the Dying in Harness
Rules and her case shall not be rejected
only on the ground that she being not the
member of the family of deceased Sri
Anil Kumar Singh.
---------
2 All] Ram Kishan V. State of U.P. and another
451
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K RASTOGI, J.

Criminal Misc. Recall Application no.
265084 of 2007
IN
Criminal Misc. Application No.26431 of
2007

Ram Kishan

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri T.K. Misra
Sri R.M. Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Shashi Kant Shukla
Sri Ratnesh
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Practice of Procedure-earlier application
dismissed having no force-subsequent
application on the same set of facts by
concealing earlier application-amounts
to fraud on court-not maintainable-recall
application-allowed-direction issued to
Registry-to ensure the signature or
Thumb impression of the applicant or his
pairokar
if
in
Jail-No
power
of
appearance accepted unless duly signed
by the person instructing the counsel for
appearance-court expressed its great
concern for necessary amendment in
relevant Rules.

Held: Para 15

Before parting with the judgement, I
would like to observe that in criminal
cases also there should be a provision
requiring the party to sign or put thumb
mark
on
the
power/
memo
of
appearance/Parcha filed by the Advocate
except in those cases where accused is
in Jail so as to avoid taking of such
excuses in future alleging that the power
filed by Advocate was not valid and that
he had no knowledge of institution of the
case. Even in those cases where the
accused is in Jail, the Power in favour of
the counsel must bear the signature/
thumb mark of the pairokar with his full
name and address with particulars of his
relationship with the accused in Jail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, J.)

1. Complainant Satish Kumar
Dubey, arrayed as opposite party no. 2 in
Crl. Misc. Application No. 26431 of 2007
has
filed
Criminal
Misc.
Recall
Application No. 265084 of 2007 for recall
of the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by
Hon'ble S.S. Kulshrestha, J. in the above
Criminal Misc. Application no. 26431 of
2007, Ram Kishan Vs. State of U.P. and
another.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of
this application are that Sri Satish Kumar
Dubey had moved an application before
the S.S.P. Ghaziabad on 17.6.2006 against
the accused Ram Kishan (applicant in
Criminal
Misc.
Application
No.
26431/07) and co accused Damodar Das,
Suresh Chand Dobariyal, P.K. Banerji,
K.C. Dobariyal and K.K. Kaushik with
these allegations that he is a member of
'Vartalok Sahkari Samiti Vasundhara',
P.S. Indrapuram District Ghaziabad and
the accused are office bearers of that
Society. He and other members of that
Society had deposited approximately
rupees one Crore in respect of their Flats
and they had details of those deposits with
them. However, upon inquiry made from
the authorities of the Housing Board they
came to know that no amount had been
deposited by the Society with the Housing
Board and in spite of repeated requests,