IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6578 of 2006 SMT.LATIKA KUMARI W/O late Sep/N.A. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Village and P.O.- Mehendrapur, P.S.- Nayagoan, District- Begusarai (Bihar) Pin-851101 -----Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Major, Company Commander, Lucknow-2 2. Army Medical Corps Centre and School,Lucknow-2 through the Captain-cum-Administrative Officer. 3. Army Medical Corps Records (NE Group),Lucknow-2 through the Captain-cum-Administrative Officer. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. R.K.Ranjan, Advocate For the Unionof India : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate (G.C.) ****************** 2/ 10-Feb-09 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks her appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her husband who was employed in the Army and died on 10.11.1994 due to cardiac respiratory failure at Begusarai of Bihar. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband had joined in the Army as Sepoy Nursing Assistant on 25.5.1989. After his death on 10.11.1994, the petitioner claims to have applied before the authorities for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1997 as also 2 for payment of the retiral benefits. By order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure-7), the claim for pension as also all other claims have been rejected on the ground that as per provisions of the rule, a deserted /dismissed personnel is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and, therefore, no claim is maintainable of her except the amount of AGI (M) benefits, which has already been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal has been passed contrary to the provisions of law and after the death of her husband; thus, on erroneous ground her claim has been rejected. In the counter affidavit the stand taken is that the husband of the petitioner had taken annual leave which was extended for some time till 2nd May, 1992 and thereafter on his non-joining he was declared deserter and kept on supernumerary strength of corps w.e.f. 2nd May, 1992. Since her husband did not return on duty for more than three years and no intimation regarding whereabouts was received from the petitioner as well as her husband, he was dismissed from the service by the Commandant 3 AMC Centre and School, Lucknow under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Army Act and Army Order No.439/63 and SOS from corps w.e.f. 20th October, 1995. It has also been pointed out in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been giving different dates of the death of her husband. The certificate granted by the Civil Assistant Surgeon , Sadar Hospital, Begusarai dated 10.11.1994 states that the husband of the petitioner died on 10.11.1994 whereas in a letter dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure D) the petitioner has stated that her husband, who had come on leave in March, 1992, became ill on account of his disease and died on 27.5.1992, and in support of the same she has annexed a certificate of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in which it is certified that the husband of the petitioner died on 27.5.1992. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the petitioner has not approached either the authority or this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has been submitting different dates of death of her husband. There are two different certificates : one dated 4 10.11.1994 issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Begusarai showing the date of death as 10.11.1994 and the second issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat showing the date of death as 27.5.1992, which shows the falsity of the case. It is rightly pointed out in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner being an employee of the Army Medical Corp, if he had suffered from any ailment then he would have got himself admitted into an Army Hospital. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the case. Even if the date of death is taken as on 10.11.1994 then after more than 14 years no appointment on the compassionate ground should be given to the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, it is now well settled that compassionate appointment is made to take care of the immediate financial hardship of the family of the deceased government employee and it can not be given 5 after a lapse of a substantial period of time. There being no merit in this writ application, it is accordingly dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.) chauhan