Devi Dass Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Devi Dass vs State of Delhi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 13, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919678

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/919678
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Decided On: Jul 13, 2011
Case Number: W.P.(C) 383/2008
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs -- The petitioner claims to be the son of Sh. Bal Kishan who died on 1st December, 1987 while in the employment of respondent MCD. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 contending that after the demise of the father, ...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devi Dass

Advocate Mr. Asit Kumar Roy, Adv.

Respondent

State of Delhi and ors.

Advocate Ms. Sana Ansari; Ms. Zubeda Begum; Mr. N.D. Dalal; Mr. D.P. Singh, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226 - power of high courts to issue certain writs -- the petitioner claims to be the son of sh. bal kishan who died on 1st december, 1987 while in the employment of respondent mcd. this writ petition was filed in the year 2008 contending that after the demise of the father, the said smt. dhanwanti has received pensionary benefits of his father and also appointment with the respondent mcd as a safai karamchari on compassionate ground by representing herself as raj rani. the petitioner seeks investigation into the same and cancellation of the appointment on compassionate ground given to the said smt. dhanwanti. the person impleaded as smt. dhanwanti has described herself as raj rani and has claimed herself to be the wife of late sh. bal kishan. the counsel for smt. dhanwanti/raj rani has also contended that in fact smt. dhanwanti raj rani brought up and got married the petitioner and this petition has been filed as a result of subsequent disputes between the two. the relief to which the writ petition is confined will not benefit the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. .....respondent mcd since prior to the demise of late sh. bal kishan. 3. the counsel for smt. dhanwanti/raj rani has also contended that in fact smt. dhanwanti/raj rani brought up and got married the petitioner and this petition has been filed as a result of subsequent disputes between the two. 4. the counsel for the petitioner has today stated that he is not making any claim with respect to the pensionary benefits availed of by smt. dhanwanti/raj rani and has confined the relief in the present petition only to the cancellation of her appointment. he however admits that no prejudice has been caused to him by such employment even if given on compassionate grounds to smt. dhanwanti/raj rani. 5. in the circumstances aforesaid, this is not deemed to be an appropriate case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india. the relief to which the writ petition is confined will not benefit the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. even otherwise, the disputes raised in the writ petition are factual in nature and cannot be appropriately adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner claims to be the son of Sh. Bal Kishan who died on 1st December, 1987 while in the employment of respondent MCD. The petitioner claims to be about 4 to 5 years of age at that time. He claims that his mother Smt. Raj Rani pre-deceased his father. He however admits that after the demise of his mother his father was residing with the respondent no.6 Smt. Dhanwanti, according to the petitioner illegally because Smt. Dhanwanti were already married. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 contending that after the demise of the father, the said Smt. Dhanwanti has received pensionary benefits of his father and also appointment with the respondent MCD as a Safai Karamchari on compassionate ground by representing herself as Raj Rani. The petitioner seeks investigation into the same and cancellation of the appointment on compassionate ground given to the said Smt. Dhanwanti.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. The person impleaded as Smt. Dhanwanti has described herself as Raj Rani and has claimed herself to be the wife of late Sh. Bal Kishan. It is further claimed that she is employed with the respondent MCD since prior to the demise of late Sh. Bal Kishan.

3. The counsel for Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani has also contended that in fact Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani brought up and got married the petitioner and this petition has been filed as a result of subsequent disputes between the two.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has today stated that he is not making any claim with respect to the pensionary benefits availed of by Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani and has confined the relief in the present petition only to the cancellation of her appointment. He however admits that no prejudice has been caused to him by such employment even if given on compassionate grounds to Smt. Dhanwanti/Raj Rani.

5. In the circumstances aforesaid, this is not deemed to be an appropriate case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relief to which the writ petition is confined will not benefit the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. Even otherwise, the disputes raised in the writ petition are factual in nature and cannot be appropriately adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Devi Dass vs State of Delhi and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Constitution