Pooja Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1520 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42491 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Pooja Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Narain Srivastava,Om Prakash Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Khare,Sudhanshu Narain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner was granted compassionate appointment. After 10 years of working her appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the fact that she was a married daughter at the time of initial appointment and, therefore, she is not covered within the definition of 'family'.

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 01.09.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure - 5 to the writ petition) stands quashed. Petitioner shall be allowed to work on the post pursuant to the compassionate appointment granted on 04.11.2006.

Order Date :- 25.1.2021

Atul