1
Court No.22
Writ Petition No.2236 (SS) of 2006
Smt. Savitri Mehta ... Petitioner
Versus
Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow and others ... Opp. Parties
--------------
Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan , J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
Bank.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
16.4.2005, by means of which compassionate appointment to the petitioner has
been denied by the opposite parties.
The facts giving rise to the present petition are that husband of the petitioner
late Sri Jeewan Singh Mehta was a regular employee in the State Bank of India and
was working on the post of Assistant in Piparia Agru Branch, District Pilibhit and
while working on the post of Assistant he expired on 3.6.2001 leaving behind the
petitioner, two minor daughters, namely Km. Geeta and Km. Priya and one minor
son, Master Jatin and mother Tulsi Devi and sister Kamla Mehta. The petitioner
after the death of her husband made several applications for compassionate
appointment under the existing scheme of the State Bank of India on 22.10.2003,
29.1.2004 and on 9.2.2004. The opposite parties issued a letter to the petitioner on
14.8.2004 informing her that her claim for compassionate appointment has been
declined by the competent authority on the ground that she is not an Indian citizen.
On 3.2.2005 the petitioner in reply to the letter dated 14.8.2004 has submitted a
representation asserting therein that she is a citizen of India as her name is in the
voter list and she is exercising her voting right in each and every election. She has
also stated that her father served the Indian Army and he is getting pension from the
Government of India. The petitioner further requested for compassionate
appointment as there was financial hardship and distress in the family. The
petitioner again submitted another representation on 1.3.2005. On 16.4.2005
opposite party no.3 issued a letter to the petitioner by means of which it was
informed to the petitioner that request of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected by the appropriate authority, but the said letter has
not been supplied to the petitioner. When the said letter was not supplied to the
petitioner, a legal notice was sent to opposite parties no.2 and 3 on 29.12.2005
through registered post, but till date the same same has not been supplied to the
2
petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is
citizen of India and father of the petitioner is also drawing pension from the
Government of India. Apart from it, it is submitted that the petitioner has married to
late Sri Jeewan Singh Mehta, who was citizen of India and was residing in district
Pilibhit. The petitioner is all along living along with her husband and her name was
recorded in the voter list and she was also issued domicile certificate and the ration
card and she was always treated as Indian citizen.
In reply to the aforesaid argument, counsel for the opposite parties has
submitted that petitioner was born in Nepal and the citizenship of the petitioner has
to be determined in accordance with the place of birth. It is also submitted that the
petitioner’s father was a Nepali citizen and he retired from the Indian Army, but he
never acquired the citizenship of India. It is further submitted that the petitioner
cannot be treated as Indian citizen by virtue of her marriage to Late Sri Jeewan
Singh Mehta, who was citizen of India.
Having considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and going
through the record, I find that a specific averment has been made in para 12 of the
writ petition, wherein the petitioner has specifically stated that she was born on
27.12.1973 in Nepal and her father Dhan Singh Bhandari was getting pension from
the Government of India after serving in the Indian Army from 10.6.1943 to
10.6.1971. The petitioner was married with Sri Jeewan Singh Mehta on 28.2.1996,
who was citizen of India and since then she is continuously living in India. The
Election Commission of India has also issued the identity card to the petitioner and
her name is in the voter list of 41, Pilibhit Vidhan Sabha Constituency. The domicile
certificate was also issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,
Pilibhit and the ration card has also been issued in her name. The petitioner was
married to Sri Jeewan Singh Mehta on 28.2.1996 and she continued to live with her
husband, who was an Indian citizen, all throughout in Pilibhit till his death i.e.
3.6.2001. The domicile of a particular person is dependent upon her living at a
particular place for five years. The petitioner has been residing at the present place
for more than five years and that is why she was issued the domicile certificate. So
far the inclusion of the petitioner in the voter list is concerned, that goes to indicate
that she has been treated as an Indian citizen for all purposes. Even otherwise, the
petitioner has been issued identity card by the Election Commission of India, which
is also the substantive proof of the fact that she is an Indian citizen.
The provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955( for short ‘the Act’) sought to be
relied upon by the counsel for the opposite parties do not come to rescue of the
3
opposite parties as the citizenship of the petitioner has not been determined as
contemplated under Section 9 of the Act and the other modes of citizenship as
provided under Section 5 (c) of the Act has to be seen that a person who is married
to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident of India for seven years before making
an application for registration. The cumulative affect of the aforesaid provision
would be that the petitioner, who was married to late Sri Jeewan Singh Mehta in
the year 1996, continued to live along with her husband till his death, therefore, she
has to be treated as citizen of India for all purposes.
The issue in regard to acquisition of citizenship has been decided by the apex
Court in the case of Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233 and
the case of the petitioner is on a better footing and she having been married to an
Indian citizen and she by virtue of continuously residing along with her husband
leads to only one conclusion that she is to be treated as Indian citizen. The opposite
parties have misdirected themselves in denying the claim of the petitioner in regard
to compassionate appointment when family liability is so great as pointed out in the
earlier part of the order and looking to the distress of family of the petitioner she
ought to have been given appointment under the existing scheme. Since the opposite
parties have failed to discharge their legal obligation and they have also misdirected
themselves in deciding the issue in question, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in law and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.4.2005 is
hereby quashed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties
to consider and give appointment to the petitioner according to her qualification
within a period of three months from the date a certified copy is produced before
them.
14.7.2010
Rao/-