Allahabad High Court
Shilpi Singh (Smt.) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16548 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shilpi Singh (Smt.)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy,Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Saran
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sri Alok Saran, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 to 4.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 7.1.2021 issued by the Personal Officer of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow by means of which claim of the petitioner for providing any appropriate/ suitable appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules has been rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner being a married daughter so she does not come within the purview of 'family' as per Rule 2 of Dying-in-Harness Rules.
The sole question for consideration before this Court is that as to whether married daughter comes within the purview of definition 'family' so defined under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1975 particularly in view of the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 21.
The Full Bench after considering the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules and relevant case laws on the subject has held that the married daughter comes within the purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. Relevant paragraphs no.25, 26, 27 & 28 are being reproduced herein below:-
"25. 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., 2015 (9) ADJ 16. 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.
26. 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.
27. We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.
28. 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."
Therefore, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra), I find that the impugned order dated 7.1.2021 has not been passed by the authority concerned strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, I hereby decide this writ petition finally at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, quashing/ setting aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2021 passed by the Personal Officer of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, remanding back the same issue to the competent authority concerned to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and also in conformity with the decision of Full Bench of this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and appropriate orders be passed with expedition, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. While passing appropriate order, required opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected person, if any, may be provided by the authority concerned.
It is expected that if there is no legal impediment, the appropriate order shall be passed on the compassionate ground in view of the observations made herein above.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021
RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
