Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sushma Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4165 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi,Gaurav Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 2.1.2021 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kannauj, whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of she being married daughter and for a further direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.
The record in question reflects that the father of the petitioner namely Late Hira Lal was working on the post of Safai Karmi at Gram Panchayat Bangawa, Block Hareshan, Distt. Kannauj. He died-in-harness and the mother of the petitioner namely Vimla @ Guddi Devi was appointed as Safai karmi in his place. She also died-in-harness. It is contended that the petitioner was fully dependent upon her parents despite being married. As such she moved an application before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kannauj for giving appointment on the post of Safai Karmchari in place of her mother. Eventually the respondent authorities by the order impugned has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the married daughter does not come within the meaning of family for giving compassionate appointment. Aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the said issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Vimla Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., Laws (All) 2015-12-60. 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.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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment the impugned order cannot sustain and this Court may come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, it is directed that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioner shall not be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment only on the ground of her marital status.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
SP/
