Allahabad High Court
Aruna vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3424 of 2019
Petitioner :- Aruna
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar under the respondents and he died on 4th July, 2018 during service.
He submits that the petitioner is the elder married daughter and being the dependent of the deceased employee, she has applied for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents by the impugned order on the ground that married daughter has no right for being appointed on compassionate grounds under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1974) and does not come within the definition of family.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (1) ALJ 678 and submits that the non-inclusion of the married daughter in the ambit of family under the Rules of 1974 is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra).
The relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra) is extracted hereunder:-
"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"
Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the view taken by this Court in Vimla Srivastava (supra), the impugned order dated 11th December, 2018 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra). The respondent no.3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.11.2022
Bhaskar
