While deciding a case where petitioner’s claim on a Class IV post in the GRP on compassionate ground was rejected by the authority concerned on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased hence, she could not be given the status of his widow, the Court held that the concerned authority has not recorded this fact of petitioner being the second wife of the deceased in the impugned order and without specifically finding this fact, the order of the authority concerned would not be a speaking order and would be considered as arbitrary and illegal. The Court further observed that in the absence of finding of fact, the application of law has no meaning as the law whether settled by the court of law or whether by the statute will be applicable only to the individual facts of the case.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22518 of 2014
Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Devi @ Smt. Poonam
Respondent :- Union Of India And Another
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and Shri Sudhir Bharti for the respondents.
Impleadment application impleading the State as a respondent is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out in the array of respondents today itself.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.2012 whereby her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Moradabad.
According to the petitioner she is the sole wife of late Subhash Chandra Verma who was posted in the G.R.P. on a class IV post and died while still in service on 23.3.2007. The petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment but her claim has been rejected.
Learned standing counsel has sought to justify the impugned order observing that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee and therefore in view of the law laid down in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) ESC 577 the second wife cannot have the status of widow of the deceased employee.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that the S.P., GRP, Moradabad has nowhere recorded a finding that the petitioner is the second wife of late Subhash Chandra Verma and therefore in the absence of a finding of fact being recorded how has the S.P. GRP, Moradabad applied the law. In the absence of finding of fact, the application of law has no meaning as the law whether settled by the Court or whether by the Statute will be applicable only to the individual facts of a case. In the absence of specific finding in the impugned order that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee, the impugned order dated 1.2.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be the speaking order and can only be said to be an illegal and arbitrary order and is therefore quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3-Superintendent of Police, Railway (GRP), Moradabad to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 6.5.2014
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22518 of 2014
Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Devi @ Smt. Poonam
Respondent :- Union Of India And Another
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Order Date :- 6.5.2014
Heard Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and Shri Sudhir Bharti for the respondents.
Impleadment application impleading the State as a respondent is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out in the array of respondents today itself.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.2012 whereby her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Moradabad.
According to the petitioner she is the sole wife of late Subhash Chandra Verma who was posted in the G.R.P. on a class IV post and died while still in service on 23.3.2007. The petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment but her claim has been rejected.
Learned standing counsel has sought to justify the impugned order observing that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee and therefore in view of the law laid down in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) ESC 577 the second wife cannot have the status of widow of the deceased employee.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that the S.P., GRP, Moradabad has nowhere recorded a finding that the petitioner is the second wife of late Subhash Chandra Verma and therefore in the absence of a finding of fact being recorded how has the S.P. GRP, Moradabad applied the law. In the absence of finding of fact, the application of law has no meaning as the law whether settled by the Court or whether by the Statute will be applicable only to the individual facts of a case. In the absence of specific finding in the impugned order that the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee, the impugned order dated 1.2.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be the speaking order and can only be said to be an illegal and arbitrary order and is therefore quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3-Superintendent of Police, Railway (GRP), Moradabad to reconsider the matter of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 6.5.2014
No comments:
Post a Comment