Astha Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10093 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9803 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Astha Mishra
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner is a married daughter. Her mother was employed as Assistant Teacher who died on 9.5.2021 while she was in service. An application for grant of compassionate appointment has been moved by the petitioner, which was rejected by the order impugned dated 16.7.2021 on the ground that being a married daughter petitioner does not form part of family under Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

A Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015, has been pleased to hold as under:-

"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."

A Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016 (The State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Neha Srivastava) filed against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed on 23.7.2019.

It is contended that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, respondents cannot deny consideration to petitioner's claim only on the ground that she is not a member of 'family'.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that in view of the pronouncement of law by this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (DB), the authority concerned shall revisit the issue.

The claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be denied only on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter.

Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.7.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure - 8 to the writ petition) stands quashed. A fresh decision would be taken by the authority concerned within a period of three months from today, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra).

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

Ranjeet Sahu