Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mandvi Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 21027 of 2019
Petitioner :- Smt. Mandvi Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Pandey,Satendra Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr.Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.
Learned State Counsel submits that since only a short question of law is involved, as such, he does not intend to file any counter affidavit. Accordingly, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.
Petition has been filed against order dated 25.02.2017 whereby petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment in terms of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected on the ground that petitioner has been indicated in the records as a married lady, which does not come within the definition of family in the aforesaid rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava v. State of U.P and another) decided on 23.12.2015 and prays that the present petition be disposed of in accordance with the said judgment. The said question of law is not disputed by the learned State Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has also placed reliance in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & anr.) decided on 04.12.2015 in which Hon'ble the Division Bench had proceeded to allow the claim of the married daughter for compassionate appointment and held 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 Art.14 and 15 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"We are in respectful agreement with the view which has been expressed on the subject by diverse judgments of the High Courts to which we have made reference above.
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.. 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.
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."
When the impugned order dated 25.02.2017 is seen in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) what clearly comes out is that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of married daughter not being included in the definition of family as defined in Rule 2(c) of 1974 Rules is clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Vimla Srivastava (supra) and the impugned order of rejection dated 25.02.2017 whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground of she being a married daughter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2017, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition. A writ of Mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 3 i.e District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner shall not be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment only on the ground of her marital status. The said consideration would be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021
kvg/-
