Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21900 of 2011 Petitioner :- Poonam Dwivedi Respondent :- District Basic Shiksha Adhikari And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- J.N.Maurya Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.N. Maurya, who appeared for the respondents 1 to 3.
This petition challenges an order dated 3 March 2011/20 February 2011 pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner, the daughter-in-law of the deceased government servant for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected. The sole ground on which the impugned order is based is that a daughter- in-law is not covered under the definition of family as set forth in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Although, the respondents do not dispute that a daughter would fall within the definition of family the objection taken principally is that a daughter-in-law would not stand included in the expression "daughter".
Undisputedly, the husband of the petitioner had pre-deceased and expired in 1988. The government servant, the father-in-law of the petitioner, died while in service on 14 March 2005. It is averred by the petitioner that at that time, she as well as her minor son were totally dependant upon the deceased government servant.
The issue whether a daughter-in-law would fall within the definition of family was duly considered by a Full Bench of the Court in U.P. Power Corporation, Allahabad Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi, (2011) 1 UPLBEC 290 wherein the following principles were enunciated:
"8. We must, however, note one feature of the definition of the word "family" as generally contained in most Rules. The definition of "family" includes wife or husband; sons; unmarried and widowed daughters; and if the deceased was an unmarried government servant, the brother, unmarried sister and widowed mother dependant on the deceased government servant. It is, therefore, clear that a widowed daughter in the house of her parents is entitled for consideration on compassionate appointment. However, a widowed daughter-in-law in the house where she is married, is not entitled for compassionate appointment as she is not included in the definition of "family". It is not possible to understand how a widowed daughter in her father's house has a better right to claim appointment on compassionate basis than a widowed daughter-in-law in her father-in-law's house. The very nature of compassionate appointment is the financial need or necessity of the family. The daughter-in-law on the death of her husband does not cease to be a part of the family. The concept that such daughter-in-law must go back and stay with her parents is abhorrent to our civilized society. Such daughter-in-law must, therefore, have also right to be considered for compassionate appointment as she is part of the family where she is married and if staying with her husband's family. In this context, in our opinion, arbitrariness, as presently existing, can be avoided by including the daughter-in-law in the definition of 'family'. Otherwise, the definition to that extent, prima facie, would be irrational and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to consider this aspect and take appropriate steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law like a widowed daughter, is also entitled for consideration by way of compassionate appointment, if other criteria is satisfied."
In that view of the matter, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the stand as taken by the respondents. Further, the Court notes that by virtue of the 9th Amendment of the 1974 Rules introduced in 2011, the expression "widowed daughter-in-law" has been specifically included. The amendment as made in these Rules is clearly and manifestly clarificatory in character and is in any view of the matter in tune with the law as declared by the Full Bench of the Court and referred to above.
Accordingly and for all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 20 February 2011 is hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the Basic Education Officer, Ramabai Nagar for consideration afresh and bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. This exercise shall be completed with expedition and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019/Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)