Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Savitri Devi Vs. Uoi and anr.

Savitri Devi vs Uoi and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 12, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/958073

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Savitri Devi

Respondent

Uoi and anr.

Advocate Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Gupta

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi + % w.p.(c) no. 16818/2006 12th march, 2013 savitri devi ...... petitiner through: mr. harish pandey, adv. versus uoi & anr. ...... respondents mr. sachin datta, adv. for r-1. through: mr. satyendra kumar, adv. for mr. sanjeev kr. gupta, adv. for r-2. coram: honble mr. justice valmiki j.mehta to be referred to the reporter or not? valmiki j.mehta, j (oral) 1. by this writ petition, the petitioner who is a widow of one sh. k.p.mishra, seeks compassionate employment with the respondent no.2/dena bank either for herself or her daughter.2. the respondent no.2-bank had filed counter-affidavit and stated that the present case is not a case of an employee dying while in service with the respondent no.2, but the case is a case where the employee had abandoned his services with the respondent no.2. it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the husband of the petitioner on account of failure to join duties was issued notices, for rejoining his duties, which however were not complied with and therefore it was held that the husband of the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his services. it is pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the principle of compassionate employment cannot apply where there is voluntary abandonment of services and the same will only apply when there is a death of an employee in service. paras 5 and 6 of the preliminary objections of the counter-affidavit are relevant and the same read as under:5. that the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the husband of the petitioner sh.k.p.mishra was working with the respondent bank and the remained un-authorisely absent from his duties w.e.f. 25.5.1992 and accordingly in terms of the clause 17 of bipartitesettlement dated 10.4.1989 (copy enclosed and marked as annexure-a), he was given notice through leading news papers on 28.7.1993, i.e. hindustan times, times of india, navbharat, hindustan, statesman and indian express thereby called upon him to a

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 16818/2006 12th March, 2013 SAVITRI DEVI ...... Petitiner Through: Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. VERSUS UOI & ANR. ...... Respondents Mr. Sachin Datta, Adv. for R-1. Through: Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Gupta, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is a widow of one Sh. K.P.Mishra, seeks compassionate employment with the respondent no.2/Dena Bank either for herself or her daughter.

2. The respondent no.2-bank had filed counter-affidavit and stated that the present case is not a case of an employee dying while in service with the respondent no.2, but the case is a case where the employee had abandoned his services with the respondent no.2. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the husband of the petitioner on account of failure to join duties was issued notices, for rejoining his duties, which however were not complied with and therefore it was held that the husband of the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his services. It is pleaded in the counter-affidavit that the principle of compassionate employment cannot apply where there is voluntary abandonment of services and the same will only apply when there is a death of an employee in service. Paras 5 and 6 of the preliminary objections of the counter-affidavit are relevant and the same read as under:5. That the Writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the husband of the petitioner Sh.K.P.Mishra was working with the respondent bank and the remained un-authorisely absent from his duties w.e.f. 25.5.1992 and accordingly in terms of the clause 17 of BipartiteSettlement dated 10.4.1989 (Copy enclosed and marked as annexure-A), he was given notice through leading news papers on 28.7.1993, i.e. Hindustan Times, Times of India, Navbharat, Hindustan, Statesman and Indian Express thereby called upon him to attend the branch office Allipore Delhi where he was lastly posted latest by 27.8.1993 and also explain his unauthorized absent failing which he shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the services. Copy of the notice are annexed herewith as mark as annexure B and C. Since he failed to report/attend his branch despite the notice till 28.8.1993, hence he voluntary abandoned the service of the bank. 5.That the Writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the services of Sh.K.P.Mishra husband of the petitioner has voluntary abandoned the service of the bank, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the petition.

6. That the Writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as Sh.K.P.Mishra had not opted for pension and as such the petitioner can not claim the pension. Regarding providing job to his legal heirs to the petitioner or any of his children. It is submitted that bank is unable to provide job since husband of the petition had voluntarily abandoned/vacated the services of the bank and have not expired when he was in service.

2. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate employment cannot succeed because a person on the date of death must be in employment of respondent no.2-Bank and in the present case, merely because the petitioners husband is untraceable will not mean that on the date of abandonment of the services he was dead so that the policy of the compassionate employment will apply.

3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MARCH 12 2013 ib WP(C) 16818/2006

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial