Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8554 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Suryabhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent (s).
Petitioner is before this Court with following main prayers:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law in view of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Writ C No. 60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner under the dying-in-harness rules 1974."
It appears from the record that the mother of the petitioner namely Saraswati Devi was working as class-IV employee i.e. Coolie in the Urban Electricity Distribution Division-I, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhelupur, Varanasi. Unfortunately, she died in harness on 31.1.2020. After the death of her mother, the petitioner applied for her appointment on compassionate ground but the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has not been accorded on the ground that she is married, therefore, she does not come under the definition of family as daughter, which has been assailed by means of present writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.60881 of 2015 decided on 04.12.2015) Laws (All) -2015-12-60 has decided the controversy by holding that married daughter also comes under the definition of daughter, therefore, the claim should be considered by the competent authority for appointment on compassionate ground. The order of Division Bench was challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016; The State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Neha Srivastava, which has been decided vide judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 by dismissing the petition. In view of the above, the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been upheld.
In the light of the aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be considered in view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the ratio of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the controversy in regard to appointment of married daughter in different government departments has been settled by Division Bench of this court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the issue is no more res integra.
On perusal of the record, it is evident that the answering respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that she is married daughter of the deceased employee.
I have gone through the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others (Supra) and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016 (Supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others (Supra) upon consideration of the relevant provisions for appointment on compassionate ground has recorded as under:
"We are in respectful agreement with the view which has been expressed on the subject by diverse judgments of the High Courts to which we have made reference above.
During the course of submissions, our attention was also drawn to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mudita vs. State of U.P.13. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to deal with an identical issue of the right of a married daughter to be considered under the Dying-in-Harness Rules observed that a married daughter is a part of the family of her husband and could not therefore be expected to continue to provide for the family of the deceased government servant. The judgment proceeds on the premise that marriage severs all relationships that the daughter may have had with her parents. In any case it shuts out the consideration of the claim of the married daughter without any enquiry on the issue of dependency. In the view that we have taken we are unable to accept or affirm the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and are constrained to hold that Mudita does not lay down the correct position of the law.
In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.
In consequence, we direct that the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarify that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioners shall not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status.
The writ petitions shall, accordingly, stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
The finding returned by the Division Bench was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016 (Supra), which was dismissed on 23.07.2019 by affirming the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.
On perusal of the finding returned on the point that whether a married daughter is entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground or not, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the married daughter also comes under the definition of daughter, therefore, she is entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground.
The writ petition is disposed of and the matter is relegated to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner in accordance with her qualification in the light of observation made above and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Jaswant