The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed by a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment held that brothers being in government service and mothers receiving pension were not a bar of petitioner (married daughter) seeking compassionate appointment.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness. Her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on grounds that being married, she was no longer dependent on the deceased employee and was not entitled to compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that so far as the judgment is concerned, over which reliance has been placed by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner i.e. in the case of Madhavi Mishra, the same does not pertain to the Rules, 1974 and as such, has no applicability to the facts of the present case, more particularly, when the petitioner has staked her claim for compassionate appointment under the provisions of the Rules, 1974 which in fact have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava. So far as the allegation of two brothers of the petitioner being in employment is concerned, reliance has been placed on the provisions of Rules, 1974 to contend that there is no such bar in the Rules which prohibits the petitioner from being appointed on compassionate ground in case any of her brothers are in employment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the order impugned and stated that on account of the grounds, as contained in the order impugned, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that in the case of Madhavi Mishra, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had considered the provisions of the 1955 regulations and not the 1974 Regulations. Accordingly, the same was held inapplicable in the case of the petitioner. Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Kumari Nisha v. State of U.P., wherein it was held that n being in government service is not a bar on other family members seeking compassionate appointment as his earnings are for the survival of his family (wife and children). It was held that the legislature has consciously amended the provision to prohibit other members of the family from seeking compassionate appointment only if the spouse of the deceased is in government employment.
Further, it was stated that Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari vs State of U.P and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Moin
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 556 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Tushar Verma, Prashant Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
