Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9723 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1784 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prem Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner who is the mother of one Ashish Kumar who was a government servant and was working on the post of Constable in the Civil Police. Ashish Kumar was married to respondent No. 4 on 28.05.2013 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals but there were several matrimonial disputes and therefore respondent No. 4 had filed an application U/S 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi. 3. Apart from the above, respondent No. 4 had also lodged a first information report against the petitioner and her son in Police Station Mahila Thana, Hardoi registered as Case Crime No. 29 of 2015 under Sections 498A/323/504/506 I.P. C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. 4. It has further been stated that a compromise was entered between the son of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 wherein her son had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- to her out of which Rs. 2,35,000/- was paid on the same day and the remaining amount was to be paid in two parts at the time of filing an application under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act. 5. It seems that even before filing of any application U/S 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act in the court of competent jurisdiction, the son of petitioner died and consequently it is in the aforesaid circumstances that respondent no. 4 has moved an application to respondent No. 2 for being granted compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In support of her application, she has also annexed a succession certificate issued by District Magistrate, Hardoi which has been based on the report of the Tehsildar. 6. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the succession certificate dated 05.12.2024 stating that the same is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the same does not mention the details of the petitioner. It has been submitted that because the succession certificate issued by the District Magistratedoes not depict the correct details of the legal heirs and hence has prayed for setting aside the same and further prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 not to consider the request of the respondent No. 4 for appointment on compassionate ground till disposal of civil suit. 7. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also mentioned that the petitioner has preferred a declaratory suit before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Poorvi, Hardoi which is registered as O.S. no. 176 of 2020 for declaring her legal heir of her deceased son Ashish Kumar regarding property recorded in the name of her son Ashish Kumar which is still pending. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. 9. It has been submitted that with regard to the prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents not to consider the case of the respondent No. 4 under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, it is stated that the same has to be considered by the competent authority and even if there are objections and rival claims specific rules has been made under Rule 7 of Rules of 1974,where all the aspects can be considered and presently no such order has been passed by the competent authority and hence the argument made by the petitioner is premature. 10. It has been further submitted that the succession certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Hardoi is a mere administrative order which is made on the request of other government departments where the service dues of the deceased government servant are to be paid to the legal heirs to determine as to who is the legal heir. Such certificates are issued based on preliminary inquiry which got conducted by the revenue authorities merely to assist the department in payment of dues of the government to the legal heirs of the government servant. 11. He further submits that in case there is any dispute among the legal heirs, it is open for them to approach the court of competent jurisdiction and obtain appropriate orders pertaining to their rights as legal heirs. He further submits that the said certificate is issued with the intention that every individual should not be forced to litigate before the civil court to obtain a decree of succession and in case there is no such dispute the accounts should be settled with expedition and the payment made to the legal heirs of the deceased government servant. 12. Accordingly, he submits that there is no infirmity in the order dated 05.12.2024 inasmuch as the same has been made on the report of the Tehsildar and in case the petitioner has any disputed, it is open for her to move an appropriate application in the civil court to be declared as the successor of the deceased government servant and it is in the aforesaid, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. I have heard rival contention and perused the record. 14. Firstly, it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that respondent No. 4 is the wife of the deceased government servant Ashish Kumar who is the son of the petitioner. It seems that there were matrimonial disputes due to which respondent No. 4 had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of competent jurisdiction and also an agreement had been entered into between the son of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 where certain amounts had already been paid to respondent no. 4. But according to the said agreement, an application under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act was to be moved but the same was not moved as the son of the petitioner had died in the meanwhile. 15. Accordingly, even the petitioner could not dispute the fact that at the time of death of her son, respondent No. 4 continued to be the legally wedded wife of her son and consequently it cannot be denied that she was a legal heir of her son. Being the legal heir, she was fully entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974. Considering the fact that petitioner has disclosed her age to be 63 years and even if she is also declared a legal heir, she cannot be granted any government service looking into her age. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit with regard to claim made by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 may not be granted appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974, and accordingly same is rejected. 16. The second challenge has been made to the succession certificate dated 05.12.2024 issued by the District Magistrate. In this regard also this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner is that she is also the legal heir of her son Ashish Kumar and accordingly it is open for her to move before court of competent jurisdiction to take her claim and obtain a declaration in this regard. Merely because her name is not mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2024 cannot be a reason for setting aside the same inasmuch as the widow of the deceased government servant is fully entitled to receive the service dues under the relevant rules. 17. Again in this regard, if the petitioner feels that she has a better right than respondent No. 4 to claim service dues of the deceased son, then she has to move before the competent court of jurisdiction and receive a declaration before she can claim the said amount in exclusion to respondent No. 4 or jointly with respondent No. 4. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity either in the succession certificate dated 05.12.2024 and the prayer No. ii cannot be granted for the reasons stated hereinabove. 19. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench