Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) On this petition, the petitioner, Smt. Kiran Agrawal, sought two reliefs (i) that she be employed by the education department and (ii) she be granted the money due to her as an heir consequent upon the death of her mother. The moneys which were due on the death of her mother, Smt. Laxmi Bal, were in reference so provident fund, gratuity, insurance and other service dues.
(2.) Upon a notice being issued to the State respondents, namely, the Secretary, Education, the Principal, Rajkiya fialika Intermediate College, Mahoba, District Hamirpur, Mundaliya Bairka Vidyalaya Nirikshika, Jhansi Mandal, Jhansi, and the Director of Education, U. P. Allahabad, by an Interim mandamus, a counter-affidavit was filed. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, by the Principal of the Rajkiya Baiika Intermediate College, Mahoba, brongbt to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is married and that the petitioner is married and that her husband is in the State service and, consequently, she cannot get employment. Impliedly under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. On the dues which the petitioner's mother was entitled, bad she been alive, the counter-affidavit submits that the petitioner is not alone and that she has a brother end both are the heirs to their mother's assets. The counter-affidavit further places on record that the petitioner's brother, Deepak Agrawal, is a minor and under the guardianship of her maternal uncle, one Durga Prasad Agrawal. The guardian had been appointed by the Court of the District Judge, Jhansi, in Durga Prasad Agrawal v. Smt. Kiran Agrawal, Misc. Case No 80 of 1986 It is submitted, in the counter-affidavit, that these facts were concealed from the Court.
(3.) Indeed, these facts are not mentioned in the writ petition. But for the counter-affidavit, the Court would have made a wrong order requiring the respondents to employ the petitioner under the rule of harness, when she was not entitled to, and delivering ail the monetary benefits, without sharing with her brother. The petitioner was put under notice for having made incorrect facts in the petitioner or not having truthfully stated them in the writ petition and was required to appear in Court on 15 July, i.e. today. The petitioner has appeared in person before the Court.;