WPSS/1214/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 3506 UK

                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.1214 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Petitioner is married daughter of Gauri Sharma, who was serving as Nursing Matron at Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani, District Nainital. Since petitioner's mother died while still in service, therefore, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Since her request for compassionate appointment was not being considered, therefore, petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Competent Authority to grant her compassionate appointment, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that married daughter is not included within the definition of expression 'family'. Subsequently, a Full Bench of this Court in its judgment held that a daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely on the ground that she is married. In the light of the Full Bench judgment, petitioner again approached this Court by filing WPSS No.891 of 2019, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Competent Authority to examine petitioner's claim in the light of the Full Bench Judgment. Since petitioner's representation made pursuant to the order of this Court passed in WPSS No.891 of 2019 was rejected, therefore, petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2021 formulated certain questions and referred the matter to be considered by Larger Bench. The questions, so formulated, have been answered by the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022. The Full Bench has made certain observations in para 7 and, in view of the said observations, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Para 7 of the judgment is reproduced below:-

"7. Thus, in answering the questions, set forth by the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no mention in the conclusion given by the Full Bench of this Court that such law declared by this Court will be applicable only prospectively not retrospectively it has to be taken a declaration of law applicable to all cases retrospectively. However, in this case we take note of the fact that the petitioner has already approached this Court twice. Once, before the pronouncement of the Full Bench judgment in WPSB No. 391 of 2013, Which has already been decided against her. Thus, the judgment declaring the law of the Full Bench will not reopen settled cases. It can be applied to only case which are pending before this Court or which will be filed in the future date. By virtue of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court referred to above, a right which has already been denied and the court has not interfered with the same, then the same cannot be re-agitated in view of the fact that the law has been restated by the Full Bench in the later judgment."

Since the Full Bench has held that the Full Bench judgment rendered in WPSB No.391 of 2013 will not reopen settled cases and since petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the first writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. WPSB No.391 of 2013, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in para 7, the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.11.2022 Ravi