Allahabad High Court
Smt. Reeta Devi vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8228 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Ghan Shyam Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction to the second respondent/Chief Medical Officer, Kushi Nagar to decide her application dated 02.3.2021 for compassionate ground on Class-IV post (Dai) in place of her deceased mother.
It appears from the record that the mother of the petitioner namely Lachi Devi was working on Class-IV (Dai) at Community Health Centre, Kaptanganj, District Kushi Nagar. Unfortunately, she died in harness on 12.11.2018. After the death of her mother, the petitioner moved an application on 02.3.2021 for her appointment on compassionate ground before the second respondent, which is still pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed the Junior High School examination in the year 2003. She also passed 10 days' training of 'Dai' under the Scheme of National Rural Health Mission in the year 2007 and as such, she is eligible for appointment on Class-IV post. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.60881 of 2015 decided on 04.12.2015) Laws (All) -2015-12-60 has decided the controversy by holding that married daughter also comes under the definition of daughter, therefore, the claim should be considered by the competent authority for appointment on compassionate ground. The order of Division Bench was challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016; The State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Neha Srivastava, which has been decided vide judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 by dismissing the petition. In view of the above, the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been upheld. It is submitted that the matter is pending since the year 2015 but till date the authority concerned has not taken any decision in the light of judgement in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra).
On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the ratio of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the controversy in regard to appointment of married daughter in different government departments has been settled by Division Bench of this court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the issue is no more res integra.
I have gone through the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others (supra) and Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016 (supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and others (Supra) upon consideration of the relevant provisions for appointment on compassionate ground has recorded as under:
"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.13. 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."
The finding returned by the Division Bench was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22646/2016 (supra), which was dismissed on 23.07.2019 by affirming the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.
On perusal of the finding returned on the point that whether a married daughter is entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground or not, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the married daughter also comes under the definition of daughter, therefore, she is entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground.
In the facts and circumstances, without adverting on the merit of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of finally with the direction to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment of the petitioner in the light of observation made above and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
RKP
