Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51238-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 259 of 2025 Appellant :- Khushi Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Harish Kumar Tripathi,Pankaj Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Petitioner claims to be the daughter of one Narsingh, resident of Village and Post Baurdeeh, District Deoria, who was working as a Class-IV employee as Safaikarmi. The father of the petitioner has died on 23.8.2023. A claim for compassionate appointment was put forth by the petitioner through her grandfather. It appears that one Kaushalya Devi also came up with claim of compassionate appointment on account of death of late Narsingh, on the basis of alleged marriage contracted by the deceased employee with her in the year 2019. The claim of Smt. Kaushalya Devi has been accepted in an enquiry conducted by the Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 2.11.2023. This enquiry report is Annexure-13 to the writ petition and has been perused by us. The enquiry report essentially relies upon the statement of the brother of the deceased namely Sanjay Rajbhar. The enquiry officer has given two reasons to non-suit the petitioner appellant. The first reason is that the petitioner in fact is the daughter of the brother of the deceased Narsingh Rajbhar namely Amarjit Rajbhar and is not the daughter of deceased employee. The other reason is that after the death of first wife of late Narsingh Rajbhar, he contracted second marriage with Kaushalya Devi in the year 2018 nearly six months after death of the first wife. This report of the enquiry officer forms the basis of appointment offered to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, which is assailed in the writ. 2. The enquiry report dated 2.11.2023 and the consequential appointment were thus challenged in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the brother of the deceased, whose statement has been relied upon, has in fact not given any such statement. The statement of brother Sanjay Rajbhar has been placed on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, which is contrary to the findings of the enquiry officer. An affidavit has also been filed stating that no such enquiry was actually conducted on 7.10.2023. It is also submitted that the basis of enquiry report is the alleged statement of the brother, who once has disowned the statement attributed to him, neither the enquiry report could have been sustained nor the appointment offered to Smt. Kaushalya Devi. 3. We have heard Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi for the appellant and Sri S.C. Upadhyay for the State and have perused the materials placed on record before us. 4. From the statement of brother of the deceased employee, as is noticed in the enquiry report also, it is apparent that deceased employee was earlier married to one Shail Devi. According to the respondents, Shail Devi died in the year 2018. The petitioner appellant has, however, brought on record the death certificate of Shail Devi, as per which she died on 11.11.2019. Once it is admitted that Shail Devi was the undisputed wife of the deceased employee and various documents have been placed on record by the petitioner to show that Shail Devi is her mother and she is also shown as nominee in the LIC Policy availed by the deceased, we are of the view that claim of petitioner was liable to be enquired into by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, however, has refused to interfere in the present writ petition only on the ground that questions of fact would require leading of detail evidence. 5. We are not impressed with the reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge, inasmuch as there is a serious dispute raised with regard to legality of enquiry report. The person whose statement is the basis of the enquiry report has disowned any statement having been given to the enquiry officer. Large number of documents, which have been relied upon by the petitioner are otherwise not adverted to by the learned Single Judge. In the event petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of civil court, it may take long, by when the claim of petitioner may or may not survive. The legality of the appointment offered to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, therefore, requires consideration in the writ. Even otherwise, we find that the claim of petitioner for appointment was already raised before the authority, but neither in the enquiry report nor while offering appointment to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, such claim has been touched by the authorities. The non-consideration of petitioner's claim for appointment is thus a material irregularity, which is liable to be examined by the learned Single Judge, on merits. The authorities are not justified in considering claim of one person and ignore the other claim. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that learned Single Judge ought to have examined the claim of petitioner on merits and the petitioner ought not be relegated to the remedy of suit. 7. Consequently, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 11.3.2025, passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition stands restored to its original number. We request the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to Smt. Kaushalya Devi, as per His Lordship's earliest convenience. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad