Smt. Taruna Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8444 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66467 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Taruna Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

The sole ground on which the claim of the petitioner for being accorded appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the respondents is that she was the married daughter of the deceased government servant and thus not covered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Before this Court, it is fairly conceded that the aforesaid stand would not sustain in light of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And Another [2016 (1) ADJ 21]. In Smt. Vimla Srivastava, upon noticing the relevant provisions of the 1974 Rules, the Court had proceeded to strike down the word "unmarried" from Rule 2(c)(iii). It was held that a daughter even though she may be married, if she was at the relevant time dependent on the deceased government servant, she would be entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava was reiterated by the Court in Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And Another [Special Appeal Defective No. 863 of 2015, decided on 23.12.2015]. A Special Leave Petition taken against the final decision rendered in Neha Srivastava has since come to be dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 November 2014 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law.

It is further observed that this Court has interfered with the decision of the respondents solely on the ground noticed above and that it has not independently evaluated or assessed the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate appointment on merits. Thus, all contentions of parties in other respects are kept open.

Order Date :- 22.7.2021

Arun K. Singh

(Yashwant Varma, J.)