Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1365/2022 on 27 July, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.1365 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Petitioner is married daughter of
late Savitri Devi, who served as Sweeper
in Industries Department of the State
Government and died while in service on
27.12.2015. According to the petitioner,
she is the only daughter of late Savitri
Devi and, in view of precarious financial
condition of the family after death of her
mother, petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment by making
an application on 19.05.2017. Since no
decision was taken on petitioner's
application, therefore, she filed a writ
petition, which was disposed of by this
Court with a direction to Competent
Authority to take decision on petitioner's
application, within four weeks. Pursuant
to the direction issued by this Court,
General Manager, District Industries
Center Nainital at Haldwani has now
rejected petitioner's claim vide order
dated 18.05.2022. Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached
this Court.
It is not in dispute that marriage of
the petitioner was solemnized during
lifetime of her mother.
Perusal of the impugned order
dated 18.05.2022 reveals that the sole
ground of rejecting petitioner's claim is
that she does not come within the
definition of 'family', as given in Dying-
In-Harness Rules, 1974. In the said
Rules, unmarried daughter as well as
widowed daughter come within the
definition of 'family', however, married
daughter is not included in the definition
of family. This aspect, however, was
dealt with by Full Bench of this Court in
Special Appeal No. 187 of 2017 (Udham
Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank
Ltd. & another Vs. Anjula Singh and
others) and it was held that married
daughter will also come within the
definition of 'family', provided she was
dependent on the deceased Government
servant at the time of his/her death.
Paragraph no. 65 of the said judgment is
reproduced below:
"65. Any person, who is a part of the
"family" of the deceased Government
servant, would also be included within
the said definition. Consequently, a
"married daughter" would also fall within
the definition of a "family" both in Rule
2(c) of the 1974 Rules, and under the
note below Regulation 104 of the 1975
Regulations. Needless to state that the
members of the "family" of the deceased
Government servant in Clauses (i) to (iii)
of Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules, and the
note below Regulation 104 of the 1975
Regulations, which would include a
"married daughter", would be entitled to
be considered for compassionate
appointment only if they were dependent
on the Government servant at the time
of his death, and satisfy all the other
conditions stipulated in the 1974 Rules
and the 1975 Regulations."
Since respondent no. 3 has
overlooked the aforesaid judgment
rendered by Full Bench of this Court
while considering petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment and has
rejected petitioner's claim only on the
ground that she is a married daughter,
therefore, the rejection order dated
18.05.2022 is liable to be quashed and is
hereby quashed. The writ petition is
allowed. The matter is remitted back to
respondent no. 3 to re-consider
petitioner's claim in the light of judgment
rendered by Full Bench of this Court
within a period of eight weeks' from the
date of production of certified copy of
this order. While considering petitioner's
application, respondent no. 3 shall
examine whether petitioner was
financially dependent upon her mother at
the time of her death, or not.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
27.07.2022
Arpan
