SPA/469/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 311 UK

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
               AT NAINITAL

                     SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
                                 AND
                      SRI JUSTICE N.S. DHANIK, J.

21st FEBRUARY, 2022

SPECIAL APPEAL No. 469 OF 2021

Between:

Mamta Pandey.

...Appellant and

State of Uttarakhand and others.

...Respondents

Counsel for the appellant. : Mr. Harendra Belwal, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. K.N. Joshi, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

In this Intra-Court Appeal, the petitioner-

appellant has assailed the order dated 07.12.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S)

No. 1833 of 2019, whereby her Writ Petition was

dismissed on the ground that she cannot claim

appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the

judgment of the Full Bench rendered by this Court in

Special Appeal No. 187 of 2017, Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another v. Anjula

Singh and others, wherein the Full Bench of this Court

has held that the definition of family, as laid down in the

1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations, cannot exclude a

married daughter, is not retrospective in effect. The

learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the

ground that the aforementioned Full Bench judgment of

this Court is prospective in operation.

2. We are of the opinion that a judgment lays

down the law by interpreting a provision, and it does not

have any retrospective or prospective operation.

Whenever the matter is considered by the authorities,

they are duty bound to follow the principles laid down by

this Court, and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. In this case, while the petitioner-appellant's

case was being considered, initially the Chief Veterinary

Officer, Nainital recommended for her appointment on

compassionate ground, as her father had died in

harness/public service. But, her case was returned and

it is apparent from the record that her case was not

considered, and the order that is impugned in this case

reflects that her case was being returned to her.

4. Hence, we allow the Special Appeal, set-aside

the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, and

direct the State Authorities i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4 to

reconsider the case of the appellant-petitioner on merit,

as per law, and communicate the same to her within a

period of forty-five days from the date of production of a

certified copy of this judgment before the respondent

no. 1.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-

petitioner undertakes that the appellant-petitioner will

produce a certified copy of this order, as well as a copy

of the Writ Petition, before the respondent no. 1 within a

period of ten days.

6. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be

granted to the parties, as per Rules.

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

_____________ N.S. DHANIK, J.

Dt: 21st February, 2022 Rahul