The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider married daughter in the definition of family to the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 with a further prayer that the representation dated 15.01.2014 may be directed to be decided.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 is the wife and the petitioner no.2 is the daughter of Late Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who was working on the post of Collection Sewak at Tehsil-Sadar, District-Bareilly and died while still in service under the respondents on 13.12.2013. As per the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner no.1 is living with her two daughters of which the petitioner no.2 is a married daughter though her husband is not employed and is therefore, residing with the petitioner no.1. It is stated that after the death of Late Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the petitioner no.2 submitted an application dated 15.01.2014 seeking appointment on compassionate ground but till date no order has been passed thereon.
I have heard Sri Jagriti Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Ekta Kaur for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
In respect of the claim of the petitioner no.2, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.12.2015 passed in Writ petition (C) no.60881 of 2015 Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And Another alongwith other connected writ petitions wherein the Division Bench has struck down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and has held that the petitioners shall not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status.
The learned standing counsel on the other hand has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Km. Shehnaj Begum Vs. State of U.P. And Others, (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2398 and submits that the Full Bench of the Court has held the definition of the word 'Family' as defined in Section 2 (c) to be exhaustive and submits that a married daughter does not fall within the meaning of 'Family' and therefore the claim of petitioner no.2 being a married daugther cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
The word 'Family' has been defined in Section 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974 which reads as under:-
"(c) "Family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:
(i) wife or husband;
(ii) sons/adopted sons;
(iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughter-in-law;
(iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother depended on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;
(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court:"
The Full Bench of this Court in Km. Shehnaj Begum (Supra) has considered the term 'Family' as defined in Section 2 (c) of the 1974 Rules and by way of conclusion has held the definition to be exhaustive. A married daughter does not find mention in the definition of 'family' and if the word 'family' has been held to be exhaustive it would mean that a married daughter would have no claim to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Km. Shehnaz Begum (supra) the petitioner no.2 has no claim for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15th February, 2016 Kirti