Smt.Archana Devi v. Union of India and 5 Others

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17549 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt.Archana Devi Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parashar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Vijay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶1Heard Shri Parashar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for Union of India.

¶2Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated

19.4.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in O.A. No. 330/00179 of 2014 (Smt. Archana Pandey vs Union of India & 4 Ors.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the present petitioner seeking compassionate appointment arising from the death of her husband - Roshan Lal Gupta who suffered an accidental death on 9.3.2012 while undergoing training on the post of Trainee Carriage Fitter, Technician Grade-III post.

¶3Suffice to note that against the death of the said Roshan Lal Gupta, the petitioner filed her application for grant of compassionate appointment on 15.9.2012. During pendency of that application, the mother-in-law of the present petitioner first filed an application seeking grant of compassionate appointment in favour of her younger son. Later, she withdrew that application and claimed compassionate appointment for herself. Also, it is a fact that on 11.2.2014, the petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. It led the petitioner to file original application in question.

¶4While that original application remained pending, respondent proceeded to grant compassionate appointment to the mother-in-law of the petitioner, on 26.5.2016.

¶5On specific query made, it could not be established that the petitioner ever challenged the order dated 26.5.2016 by filing any original application or seeking amendment to the original application being filed by her being O.A. No. 330/00179/2014. The fact that the present petitioner may have filed an I.A. in the said original application praying to keep in abeyance the appointment granted to her mother-in-law would be of no avail.

¶6It is a settled principle that one death in harness may give rise to only one compassionate appointment. That right having been availed by the petitioner's mother-in-law, it did not survive to the present petitioner to maintain the claim for grant of another compassionate appointment arising from the same death. As to the inter se dispute that may exist between the petitioner and her mother-in-law, it would fall outside the scope of service jurisprudence.

¶7Suffice to note if the petitioner was aggrieved by grant of compassionate appointment to the mother-in-law, it remained from her to assail that appointment. Mere filing of I.A. with the only prayer to keep an abeyance the appointment granted to the mother-in-law of the petitioner is wholly inadequate and irrelevant.

¶8In absence of any direct challenge raised to the compassionate appointment granted to the petitioner's mother-in-law, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application for that reason.

¶9Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Prakhar (S.A.H. Rizvi, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad