D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan for the respondents. This petition is directed against an order dated July 24, 2006 by which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Daftan in the respondent-Bank, who died in harness on August 31, 1997. She preferred a Writ Petition No. 26788/2006 when she was not given compassionate appointment, the petition was finally disposed off directing the respondents to consider her representation. In pursuance thereof the claim has been rejected holding that the petitioner was given the option of one time lump-sum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment and she accepted the one time lump-sum amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- and submitted an affidavit that she will not claim any further benefit including that of compassionate appointment. It appears that the petitioner concealed the aforesaid facts when filing the earlier Writ Petition No. 26788/2006.
(2.) Such a person who deliberately conceals material facts before the Courts is not entitled to any relief. Though it is stated in this petition that the petitioner did not know about the contents of the affidavit as she is illiterate, this explanation should have come in the earlier writ petition. Even otherwise, she has been awarded a handsome amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- under the scheme of the Bank, which has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Umesh Kumar and Nagpal AIR 1995 SC 319 : (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798 and therefore, she cannot now turn around to claim compassionate appointment. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager v. Kunti Tiwari has held that if sufficient amount is paid to the dependent, he loses his right of compassionate appointment because the object is only to lend a helping hand in a financial crises.
(3.) For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.;