HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 120 of 2016
Appellant :- Smt. Seema Pandey @ Sunita
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Mishra,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Mishra,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Shukla
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment was rejected as a result of which, the appellant filed a writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27 January 2016 of the learned Single Judge.
The admitted position is that the appellant had contracted a marriage with the employee during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. The marriage with the appellant was void. The submission that the first wife had consented to the marriage with the appellant will not carry the case of the appellant any further because that does not affect the legal consequences of the marriage contracted with the appellant by the employee during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. Hence, the appellant was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
The learned Single Judge has noted that the children born from the marriage with the appellant have been allowed terminal benefits to the extent of Rs.18.33 lacs. No case for interference has been made out.
The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J)
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment was rejected as a result of which, the appellant filed a writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 27 January 2016 of the learned Single Judge.
The admitted position is that the appellant had contracted a marriage with the employee during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. The marriage with the appellant was void. The submission that the first wife had consented to the marriage with the appellant will not carry the case of the appellant any further because that does not affect the legal consequences of the marriage contracted with the appellant by the employee during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. Hence, the appellant was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
The learned Single Judge has noted that the children born from the marriage with the appellant have been allowed terminal benefits to the extent of Rs.18.33 lacs. No case for interference has been made out.
The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.2.2016
RKK/-
(Yashwant Varma, J)
(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
