Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shabnur Bano vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7115 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Shabnur Bano
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Rural Development, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Kumar Verma,Sameer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
2. With the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's father Ahmad Jama Khan was working on the post of Dispatcher in the office of District Development Officer, District Sultanpur- opposite party No.3. Unfortunately, he died on 26.1.2018 survived by his his wife, three sons and 3 married daughters including the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application to the competent authority for being appointed under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 but the opposite parties have rejected her case by means of impugned order dated 20.7.2022 passed by District Development Officer, Sultanpur only on the ground that initially when the rules were framed the definition of the 'family' did not include married daughter and it is only subsequently to amendment of the rules that it happened that married daughter was included in the definition of 'family'. In the present case father of the petitioner having expired on 26.1.2018 the said amendment had not come in force consequently benefit cannot be given to the petitioner and, hence, by means of the impugned order the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner. on the other hand, submits that it is not solely on the ground that definition of 'family' was amended in 2021. Prior to that this aspect of the matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava. Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in writ C N.60881 of 2015 where this Court held that definition of daughter occurring in the said rules is arbitrary and discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution of India and consequently held that married daughter is a part of the 'family' and held that definition of 'family' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, hence, the word unmarried daughter in Rule 2 (c) (iii) was struck down as being unconstitutional and held that the word 'daughter' includes marred daughter. He has submitted that in light of the said judgment the word 'married daughter' stood included in the definition of 'family' and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be appointed.
5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other had, has supported the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear that the question with regard to the fact as to whether married daughter would be included in the definition of 'family' as occurring in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava's case and this Court after considering various pronouncements of the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that the said rule was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and, hence, was illegal and unconstitutional. This Court was of the considered view that the definition of the 'family' would include married daughter. The said judgment has attained finality. It is only in pursuance of the judgment of this Court that the State Government having accepted the directions of this Court and amended the Rules in 2021 providing that married daughter would be included in the definition of 'family' from the date of amendment .He has submitted that amendment was only consequential and brought necessary regulations being effective from the date of the amendment.
7. In light of the above and also considering that the judgment of this Court where it has been held that definition of 'family' would include married daughter. This Court is of the considered view that the amendment in the definition of 'family' it will be effective at least from the date of the judgment of this Court on 19.11.2015 when the 'married daughter' was held to be included in the definition of 'family' and consequently the father of the petitioner died in 2018 and, hence, at that point of time the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastva's case was already holding field and this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was, therefore, eligible to be considered for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 being a married daughter and, hence, the reasons given in the impugned order are clearly illegal and arbitrary and are set set aside.
8. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed under Dying in harness Rules, 1974 considering that she was otherwise eligible and would be given the benefit of the said amended rules. The competent authority shall proceed to conciser her case as proved under the said Rules and pass necessary orders expeditiously, say within two moths from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
