Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sangita Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4466 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Sangita Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avneesh Tripathi,Shikhar Tandon
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Shri Shikhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2017, whereby, the respondent no.3, Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar has rejected the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that the petitioner being married daughter could not fall within the category of family of the deceased (consisting his dependents) as per the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee and as per Rule 2 (c) (iv) of the Rules,1974 she comes within the definition of family and is entitled for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention he relied upon the division bench judgement of this Court in the case Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others (2016) 1 ADJ.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee and she is depend on her husband but could not dispute the legal pronouncement as well as the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others (2016) 1 ADJ.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that once the Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra) that the married daughter could not have been discriminated against in the matter of compassionate appointment by defining family excluding married daughter of the deceased under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and therefore, held such provision to be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution. Following the said judgment, this Court also decided the case of one Neha Srivastava which was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016, State of U.P. v. Neha Srivastava and that came to be dismissed on 23.07.2019. Thus, complying with the legal pronouncement, the State Government further amended the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 vide notification dated 12.11.2021, which now as per the definition incorporated vide para 2 would entitle the married daughter also as the same has not been excluded.
This Court is of the view that once the provision that excludes the married daughter from the definition of family of deceased having been declared as ultra virus to Article 14 of the Constitution, circular letter of any of the departments which is an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would be taken to have included married daughter also within the definition of dependents of the family for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
In such above view of the matter, the order dated 22.07.2017 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to concerned competent respondent to decide the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner taking her to be within the definition of family of dependent of the deceased and decide her claim strictly in accordance with law.
It is further clarified that in the even petitioner is found eligible for the compassionate appointment then such compassionate appointment shall not be refused on any technical ground including the ground of delay. Appropriate order is required to be passed by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
S.P.
