# Smt. Santoshi Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 115 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-03-17 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 1505 of 2015 - **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-santoshi-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49894 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Law - Compassionate Appointment - Suppression of material facts - Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974: Subrule C of Rule 2 - The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court u/Article 32 and of the High Court u/Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly St.d or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. (Para 6) In the present case, the applicant while filing the writ petition has suppressed the material facts that she is the daughter-in-law of the second wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness, so also the fact that the deceased entered into the second marriage while his first wife was surviving and therefore applicant does not come in the definition of 'family'. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. (Para 7) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: ## Text 3 All. Smt. Santoshi Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 115 14. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. ---------- (2023) 3 ILRA 115 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Writ A No. 1505 of 2015 Smt. Santoshi Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mohd. Nasir, Deo Raj Singh, Mohd. Yasin Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Suppression of material facts - Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974: Subrule C of Rule 2 - The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court u/Article 32 and of the High Court u/Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly St.d or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. (Para 6) In the present case, the applicant while filing the writ petition has suppressed the material facts that she is the daughter-in-law of the second wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness, so also the fact that the deceased entered into the second marriage while his first wife was surviving and therefore applicant does not come in the definition of 'family'. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. (Para 7) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481 (Para 6) 2. G. Jayshree & ors. Vs Bhagwandas S.B.I. Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 (Para 6) Present petition assails order dated 27.11.2014, passed by opposite party no.3. Further prayer is for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the opposite parties to consider and take decision for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner and direction to pay consequential benefits including salary admissible and permissible in accordance with law. (Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.11.2014 passed by opposite party no.3 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). He further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the opposite parties to consider and take decision for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and also directed the opposite parties to pay consequential benefits including salary admissible and permissible in accordance with law. 116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent as well as perused the record. 3. This Court vide order dated 16.3.2023 has passed the following order:- "Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as perused the record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that father-in-law of the petitioner died in harness on 5.8.2007. An application was given by the son of the deceased, however, no decision was taken in the application and in the meantime, on 29.12.2012 son of the deceased/husband of the petitioner also died. Faced with this situation, the petitioner, who is widow daughter-in-law of the deceased Mewalal gave an application immediately on the second day of the death of his husband i.e. on 30.12.2012. The defect in this application was removed after the same was being asked by the department on 7.5.2014. It is submitted that an application of the petitioner has been rejected in a cursory manner by the respondent authorities on the ground that the application has been given after delay. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while rejecting the application the respondents have overlooked their own conduct by which they kept pending the application given by the husband of the applicant for five years and no decision was taken by them on that application. It has also been overlooked that immediately after the death of the husband of the present applicant she has given the application on the very next day of the death of her husband. He submits that respondent authorities have power to relax the requirement of giving application in five years the same has not been exercised. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that the case may be taken up tomorrow i.e. 17.3.2023. As prayed, put up this case tomorrow i.e. 17.3.2023." 4. Learned Standing Counsel has invited attention of this Court towards the pleadings made in paragraph 11 of the Counter Affidavit and submits that averments of the petitioner that no action was taken upon the application given by the husband of the present applicant for compassionate appointment is factually incorrect. In fact efforts were made by the authorities by conducting personal hearing on 15.6.2009 to consider the case of the husband of the present applicant for compassionate appointment. However, owing to the fact that the petitioner's fatherin-law who died in harness was having two wives namely Ramjati (first wife) and Mayadevi (second wife), who is in fact the mother-in-law of the present applicant the application moved by the husband of the present petitioner could not be finalized. He submits that the fact that the applicant is daughter-in-law of the second wife Mayadevi of the deceased employee is borne out from the succession certificate, which is on record. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner or her deceased husband does not come into the definition of 'family' as provided under Sub-rule C of Rule 2 of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Rule 1974'.) 3 All. Smt. Santoshi Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 117 Learned Standing Counsel submits that earlier a Writ Petition No.2611 (SS) of 2009 was filed by husband of the petitioner, Sushil Kumar, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioner has also filed a Writ Petition No.5147 (SS) of 2014, Smt. Santosh Devi vs. State of U.P., which was disposed of vide order dated 15.9.2014. He submits that both these orders were passed by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner has suppressed of aforesaid facts that the petitioner as well as his deceased husband were daughter-inlaw and son of the second wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness. They clearly do not come in the definition of 'family' as provided in the Rule 1974. He further submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and as such the petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that the application on prescribed form has been given by the present applicant on 7.5.2014 i.e. after delay of six years, nine months and two days'. He further submits that the objective of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate support to the family of deceased employee who was sole breadearner and his sudden death in harness has caused serious financial scarcity and penury to the family and to mitigate such sufferance. The application of the compassionate appointment given by the applicant was delayed and, therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. While filing the writ petition the petitioner has suppressed the material facts that petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the second wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, held in para 35 as under:- 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not 118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.? The aforesaid law that coming to Court with clean hands has been repeatedly reiterated the law that by this Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a large number of cases. Some ofwhich may be noted, they are: Hari Narain v. Badri Das - AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. - (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs. v. Government of Karnatka - JT 1991 (3) SC 12 : (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. - JT 1993 (6) SC 331 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. - JT 2007 (4) SC 186 : (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI - JT 2007 (10) SC 218 : (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India- JT 2008 (1) SC 308 : (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL - JT 2008 (8) SC 57: (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel - JT 2009 (2) SC 71 : (2009) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. - JT 2009 (15) SC 201: (2010) 2 SCC 114. 7. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, so also the fact that the applicant while filing the writ petition has suppressed the material facts that she is the daughterin-law of the second wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness, so also the fact that the deceased entered into the second marriage while his first wife was surviving and does not come in the definition of 'family' as also considering the aforementioned judgements, the petition is liable to dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. ---------- (2023) 3 ILRA 118 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Writ A No. 1685 of 2011 Shadi Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Prem Shankar Trivedi, Alpana Yadav, Shikha Singh Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Challenge to the date of birth at the time of retirement - It is settled law that after attaining the age of retirement or at the fag end of the service, an employee cannot dispute the entry in the service book regarding his date of birth. (Para 7) The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the date of birth recorded in his service book after his retirement. (Para 6, 8) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs S.M. Jadhav & anr., (2001) 4 SCC 52 (Para 6) 2. Jagir Singh Vs St.of Punjab & ors., CWP No. 21166 of 2014 (Para 6) 3. Prabhu Lal Son of Shri Assistant......Vs District Basic Education......, order dated 05.12.2003 (Para 6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)