1. This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…...to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground having received the representations dated 20.11.2019, 24.11.2020, having called for the documents as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to various Government Orders, consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in place of her late husband on any suitable post and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
2. Heard Sri K.Upender Reddy, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Services-II and Sri J.Aswini Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.5.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of petitioner viz., Late Ravi was appointed as Office Subordinate as cleaner on 19.12.2001 and he died on 05.11.2019 while he was in service, leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir since the they have no issues. The petitioner received Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses from the office of respondent No.4.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the husband of the petitioner filed O.P.No.815 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner on the file of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said O.P was closed on 29.04.2005 in view of settlement before Lok Adalath as the petitioner expressed her willingness to join the deceased-Ravi and they lived together till the death of the deceased.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that consequent on the death of the deceased the petitioner has approached the respondents No.3 and 4 for release of death benefits and other benefits and also sought for appointment on compassionate grounds. While it being so, surprisingly the respondent No.5 claiming that the deceased-Ravi married her, which is false since a Government Employee cannot have two wives, which is against CCCA rules and she might have tampered the records by colluding with some of the subordinates of the office of respondents No.3 and 4. Even in the Aadhar Card also the husband’s name of the petitioner was mentioned as Ravi and the respondents No.3 and 4 ought to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds as the petitioner is the only eligible person for getting benefits of her late husband and suitable post on compassionate grounds.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in response to the application filed by the petitioner the respondent No.3 issued Memo on 06.04.2022 in Rc.No.3803/ES/DM&HO.MMDIST/2022 directing the petitioner to submit her certificates and in turn she has submitted all the relevant certificates which are available with her and requested to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to appoint her in any suitable post on compassionate grounds and requested to allow the writ petition.
7. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, basing on the counter, submits that the petitioner has not produced any documents/certificates which are mandatory for providing appointment on compassionate grounds as required by the office of DMHO, Malkajigiri dated 06.04.2022 and in view of the same the office could not take any decision for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. While so, one Smt.Reddipalli Sai Preethi, impleaded respondent No.5 herein submitted an application on 04.11.2020, claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased-Ravi, to release pensionary benefits and also to appoint her on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. Thereupon, the respondent No.5 was also asked to submit certain documents such as Legal Heir certificate, Family Members Certificate, etc., but she also did not furnish the same.
8. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, while it being so, one G.Yellavva, W/o. Ramulu r/o. Thallapalli village of Dubbak Mandal, has issued a legal notice on 09.12.2009 stating that one M.Magamma, Reddpally Raju, and P.Jyothi are the legal heirs of the deceased-employee viz., Reddypalli Ravi. In spite of written instructions to the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 they could not produce any documents for taking necessary steps for providing compassionate appointment and also for settlement of pensionary benefits and requested to dismiss the petition.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submits that the writ petitioner is falsely claiming that the deceased-Ravi died leaving behind her as his legal heir. In fact the writ petitioner claims to have married the deceased-Ravi on 04.02.2001 and she left the matrimonial house in the year 2002, as such deceased-Ravi filed O.P.No.815 of 2004 for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner, and the said O.P was settled before Lok Adalath since the petitioner expressed her willingness to join the deceased, however the petitioner did not join the deceased, as such the marriage was dissolved before the caste elders on 10.11.2011, and later the deceased married the respondent No.5 on 26.02.2012 and they both lived together till the last breath of the deceased-Ravi. The name of the respondent No.5 was also entered in the Service record of the deceased-Ravi as nominee and she was also issued Aadhar card and health card being wife of Sri Reddy Palli Ravi, therefore the claim of the writ petitioner that she lived with the deceased till his last breath was not true and correct and such the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
10. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that nowhere in the service records of the deceased-Ravi the name of the petitioner was entered as his wife and the petitioner got changed her date of birth as 15.06.1990 in her Aadhar card with a mala fide intension and in fact the date of birth of the petitioner was 1977. If the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 15.06.1990, and if the petitioner got married the deceased on 4.02.2011, at the age of 11 years, which is prohibited under Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner misrepresented before the respondent No.3 and filed false and fabricated documents regarding her educational qualifications as well as the date of birth and as she has not at all studied 10th class and obtained the said certificates during the Covid pandemic.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that, as the writ petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands she is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition as it is involved disputed question of facts and requested to dismiss the petition.
12. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and the impleaded respondent No.5 claiming themselves as wives of the deceased-Reddipalli Ravi, who died on 05.11.2019 while in service as an Office Subordinate in the office of the respondent No.4. Admittedly, the petitioner and the deceased-Ravi were having disputes and during the life time of the deceased-Ravi, he filed O.P.No.815 of 2004 on the file of City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner and the same was settled before the Lok-Adalath on 29.04.2006. The petitioner is claiming that after settlement of the said O.P. she joined the company of the Ravi and lived together till his death. At the same time the respondent No.5 claiming that the deceased-Ravi married her on 26.02.2012 and her name was also recorded as nominee in the service records.
13. On the other hand the official respondents submits that they have issued Memos to the petitioner on 06.04.2022 and to the respondent No.5 on 20.11.2020 to furnish certain documents, but both of them failed to file any documents as requested by them through the above said Memos. In the counter of the official respondents in para No.13 it is clearly stated that the respondents will take necessary action basing on the required documents/certificates filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.5, but both of them failed to produce the same. Moreover, in the present writ petition there are disputed question of facts and at the time of arguments the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 stated that the petitioner got changed her date of birth in her Aadhar card as 15.06.1990.
14. In view of the above, the instant Writ Petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as there are disputed question of facts and also the petitioner failed to produce the required documents before the competent authority before filing the writ petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
