Sumitra Kumari vs State of Bihar and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, J.—The writ petition was preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 30th November, 1998 (Annexure-6), whereby and where under, it was ordered to withhold the salary of Petitioner.

From the facts pleaded in the writ petition; counter affidavit; and enclosures attached thereto, it appears that the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the death of her mother, though she was not a dependant, being a married daughter. On such application, the Petitioner was appointed on 3rd October, 1994 and on joining continued to receive salary. Subsequently, when it came to the notice of the authorities that the Petitioner was not eligible for compassionate appointment, being married daughter of the deceased employee, is sued the impugned order dated 30th November, 1998.

It further appears that Respondents subsequently terminated the service of Petitioner on 4th. August, 1999 (vide Annexure-A), which has been challenged by the Petitioner in a separate writ petition.

In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30th November, 1999.

Though, according to this Court, the Petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, being a married daughter of the deceased employee, she having performed duty, is entitled to receive salary, if she had not suppressed the fact relating to her marriage from the authority.

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to verify as to whether the Petitioner in her application shown her to be a married daughter or not.

If the Petitioner shown her to be a married daughter and/or given the name of her husband, then it should not be construed that the Petitioner suppressed the fact relating to her marriage. In such case, the salary for the period, the Petitioner actually performed duty, be paid within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

On the other hand, if it is found that the Petitioner in her application suppressed the fact that she was married, on that ground, the Respondents will reject the claim of Petitioner for salary, even for the period she actually performed duty.

The Petitioner will produce a copy of this order before the Inspectors of School, who issued the order of termination, to ensure compliance of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.