# Sunita Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 1016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39862 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunita-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42925
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

1961-Section
15(3)(ii)-No
confidence
motion-District
Magistrate by notice dated 27.06.14stipulated-meeting can not held only
beyond 30 days-but fixed the date of
confidence motion meeting as 16.08.14held-ex-facie illegal under teeth of section
15 of adhiniyam-quashed.

Held: Para-6
In the instant case, the notice is dated 27th
June, 2014, and therefore, the meeting
could have been convened prior to 27th
July, 2014. The said date has already
passed by and as such any future date
cannot be fixed under the old notice. The
2 All]. Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
District
Magistrate,
therefore,
has
committed an error by proceeding on the
strength of old notice dated 27.6.2014.

## Text

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasonable amount per month to the
petitioners.

6. Sri Vaish appearing for the
respondent-corporation submits that order
passed by the Court shall be complied
with and the maintenance amount shall be
drawn in favour of the petitioners.

7. The object granting appointment
on compassionate ground is intended to
enable the family of the deceased
employee to tide over the sudden crisis
resulting due to death of the bread earner
who had left the family in penury without
any
means
of
livelihood.
Such
appointments
are
made
purely
on
humanitarian consideration with an object
to provide the family some sources of
livelihood.
The
appointment
on
compassionate ground is not a sourse of
recruitment, death of the employee is also
not the basis for appointment, the only
consideration is the distress to which the
family is put into, thus all the stake
holders viz the dependents upon the
deceased
employee
are
entitled
to
maintenance. The fifth respondent along
with the petitioners was dependent upon the
deceased at the time of his death, the fifth
respondent cannot deprive the petitioners of
their right to maintenance from the salary of
the fifth respondent which she earns with a
condition to maintain other dependents
failing which the service of the fifth
respondent can be terminated under sub-rule
(4) of the Rules.

8. In such view of the matter, the
fourth respondent, Executive Engineer,
Vidhyut Vitran Khand (IInd) Purvanchal
Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ghazipur
shall w.e.f. 1st September, 2014 pay Rs.
5,000/- per month, by way of cheque,
drawn in favour of the second petitioner,
Ram Dulari Devi wife of Late Bhola Nath
Tiwari, payable from the monthly salary
of fifth respondent. The payment shall be
made by tenth of each month.

9. On the next date fixed, the fourth
respondent as well as the fifth respondent
shall file affidavit of compliance.

10. List on 8th September, 2014.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39862 of 2014

Sunita Sharma ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Manju R. Chauhan

Uttar Pradesh Kshetriya Panchayat & Zila
Panchayat
Adhiniyam,
1961-Section
15(3)(ii)-No
confidence
motion-District
Magistrate by notice dated 27.06.14stipulated-meeting can not held only
beyond 30 days-but fixed the date of
confidence motion meeting as 16.08.14held-ex-facie illegal under teeth of section
15 of adhiniyam-quashed.

Held: Para-6
In the instant case, the notice is dated 27th
June, 2014, and therefore, the meeting
could have been convened prior to 27th
July, 2014. The said date has already
passed by and as such any future date
cannot be fixed under the old notice. The
2 All]. Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
District
Magistrate,
therefore,
has
committed an error by proceeding on the
strength of old notice dated 27.6.2014.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Smt. Manju R.
Chauhan for the caveator - Manju Lata.

2. The petitioner is the elected
Chairperson of the Kshetra Panchayat,
Arniya, District Bulandshahr. A no
confidence motion was initiated against
her which came to be challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37050 of
2014. The challenge succeeded on the
ground that there was an absence of 15
days of clear notice as required under
Section 15(3)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh
Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961. The writ petition was
allowed
and
the
proceedings
were
quashed.

3. The net result of the said
judgment was that since the convening
of the meeting was quashed it was open
to the members to convene a fresh
meeting in accordance with Section 15
of the Act.

4.

The
District
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr has passed an order for
convening a fresh meeting on the basis of
the old notice itself fixing 16th August,
2014.

5. The contention of Sri D.P. Singh
is that this cannot be done and a fresh
notice
has
ensued
with
a
clear
stipulation that the meeting shall be held
not later than 30 days of the date of the
notice.

6. In the instant case, the notice is
dated 27th June, 2014, and therefore,
the meeting could have been convened
prior to 27th July, 2014. The said date
has already passed by and as such any
future date cannot be fixed under the old
notice.
The
District
Magistrate,
therefore, has committed an error by
proceeding on the strength of old notice
dated 27.6.2014.

7. Smt. Manju R. Chauhan contends
that the writ petition does not implead the
members in this writ petition and
therefore it is not maintainable.

8. We are unable to agree, in view of
the conclusions drawn hereinabove that
the order passed by the District Magistrate
is ex-facie illegal and in teeth of the
statutory provision of Section 15.

9. Smt. Manju R. Chauhan could not
successfully defend the impugned order
nor could the learned Standing Counsel
point out differently.

10. Consequently, on the aforesaid
legal position that emerges the impugned
order
dated
26th
July,
2014
is
unsustainable and is hereby quashed
without prejudice to the rights of the
members to bring about a fresh motion in
accordance with law.

11. The writ petition is allowed.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2014
BEFORE