1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2020, whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter.
3. Brief fact of the case is that father of the petitioner was working as Head Master in Primary School Khudehra, Block Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri, who died while in service on 11.12.2015. The petitioner being dependent upon her father applied for grant of appointment on compassionate ground on 01.06.2017, 22.06.2017 and 14.11.2017. Her claim was placed before the competent authority for consideration and has been rejected vide order dated 28.11.2020.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the impugned order only ground has been referred that married daughter is not entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground. He placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of this court in Writ C No.60881 of 2015 decided vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2015, wherein the division bench of this court has held that the married daughter is also entitled for consideration of her claim for appointment on compassionate ground. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a matter of appointment on compassionate ground in regard to married daughter has also upheld the judgment of this court vide order dated 23.07.2019 passed in SLP No.22646 of 2016, arising out of Special Appeal Defective No.863 of 2015.
5. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is dependent of her father and has annexed succession certificate as annexure-4 to the petition to claim appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, in absence of any other source of livelihood, the petitioner is entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents admitted the position of law laid down by the division bench of this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. They also do not dispute the fact that the petitioner is dependent in her family.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is reflected that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that she is a married daughter, therefore, no appointment can be made on the ground of compassionate appointment.
9. I have also perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and the above referred judgment which lays down that appointment to a married daughter cannot be denied on the ground that she is married.
10. In view of the above, I am of the view that the respondents have committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order.
11. In view of the fact that the parties have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at this stage, the impugned order dated 28.11.2020 is hereby set aside.
12. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
13. The respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the observation made above and the judgment placed on record of the writ petition. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Adarsh K Singh