Allahabad High Court
Seema Devi vs State Of ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 30610 of 2016
Petitioner :- Seema Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Misra,Roshan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 28.03.2016 passed by respondent no.3/Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tubewell Division, District Barabanki, which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that father of the petitioner was appointed as part time Tubewell Operator in Irrigation Department on 27.12.1986 and thereafter, vide order dated 02.09.2008, his service was regularised on the said post. It is submitted that during service, petitioner's father died on 07.02.2016 leaving behind the petitioner as his only legal heir.
Learned counsel has submitted that claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the competent authority vide impugned order 28.03.2016 (supra) solely on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter, therefore, she is not entitled for the compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mrs. Vinay Kumari v. State of U.P. & Anr. - 2021 (2) ADJ 82 (LB) and submitted that the law is settled that under Section 2C of dying in harness rules, the petitioner/married daughter is also included in the 'member of family'.
Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 (supra) passed by respondent no.3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law settled and deserves to be quashed.
Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the petition on merit, however has acceded to the legal position laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I have also perused the judgment passed in Mrs. Vinay Kumari's case (supra).
From perusal of the judgment passed in Mrs. Vinay Kumari's case (supra), it is evident that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered to that of Mrs. Vinay Kumari's case (supra). It is now well settled that under Section 2C of dying in harness rules, the petitioner/married daughter is also included in the 'member of family'.
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.
Impugned order dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure - 1) passed by respondent no.3/Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tubewell Division, District Barabanki is hereby quashed.
A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.3/Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tubewell Division, District Barabanki to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment afresh in terms of judgment rendered in Mrs. Vinay Kumari's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
nishant/-
