JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the General Manager, Water Works Department, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur dated 11.04.2023, rejecting the first petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, she seeks a mandamus commanding the General Manager, Water Works Department, Kanpur Nagar Nigam to pay her post retiral benefits on account of her husband’s services, including gratuity, provident fund, as also family pension, together with interest accrued on sums of money due under different heads.

2. It is not in dispute that Kripa Shankar, the first petitioner’s father and the second petitioner’s husband, was employed as a Beldar in the Water Works Department (for short, ‘the Water Works’) within the establishment of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur (for short, ‘the Nigam’). There is also no issue about the fact that he died in harness on 18.06.2021. It is not disputed either that in Kripa Shankar’s service-book, the names of the first petitioner and the second petitioner are recorded as son and wife, respectively. It is also not in dispute that the two petitioners included, in Kripa Shankar’s service-book, five members of his family are shown. They are: (1) Smt. Ram Kumari (wife), (2) Smt. Rekha Sonkar, daughter (married), (3) Smt. Surajmukhi, daughter (married), (4) Shivam Sonkar, son, and (5) Shiva Sonkar, son.

3. Upon Kripa Shankar’s demise, the second petitioner, Ram Kumari, applied for payment of death-cum-retirement benefits on account of her husband’s service, enclosing therewith a copy of Kripa Shankar’s death certificate dated 12.08.2021. Also filed along with the claim, was a family membership certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar dated 14.05.2022, where the five family members of Kripa Shankar were shown. The first petitioner, on his part, applied for compassionate appointment on 30.05.2022 to the General Manager, Water Works as the family were reeling under a tremendous financial crisis and on the verge of starvation. The application for compassionate appointment was supported with the family membership certificate, above mentioned, the first petitioner’s father’s death certificate and affidavits of no objection from the other family members, to wit, Shiva Sonkar, Smt. Surajmukhi and Smt. Rekha. The first petitioner’s case is that there is no legal impediment in considering his case for compassionate appointment. However, the Executive Engineer (Headquarters), Water Works, vide order dated 07.06.2022, rejected the first petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the specious grounds that the General Manager, Water Works, had declined the claim because the family membership certificate dated 14.05.2022 was not valid for the purpose of government service.

4. The petitioners challenged the said order, moving this Court vide Writ-A No.2587 of 2023. This Court quashed the order dated 07.06.2022 on the ground that the first petitioner being recorded as the deceased’s heir in the service-book, the family membership certificate dated 14.05.2022 was a document informative in nature, but not relevant. The Executive Engineer was directed to pass fresh orders, ignoring paragraph No.3 of the family membership certificate dated 14.05.2022. After the said order was served upon the General Manager, Water Works, he again rejected the first petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on ground that the deceased employee had a first wife, of whom he had two children, Arti Sonkar and Sani Sonkar and that the said fact had not been disclosed in the family membership certificate produced by the first petitioner in support of his claim. The General Manager also relied on Arti Sonkar’s Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, her mark-sheet of BA IIIrd year produced by Arti Sonkar and Sani Sonkar, allegedly born to the deceased of his first wife, all of which showed late Kripa Shankar as their father, besides the family membership certificate dated 14