Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/1027/2017 on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:2957-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPA No.1027 of 2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for State of
Uttarakhand/appellant.
2. None appeared for respondent.
3. This intra court appeal is filed by
State, challenging judgment and order
dated 24.04.2017, passed by learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.691 of
2016 (S/S). By said judgment, exclusion
of married daughter from the ambit of
expression "family" under Rule 2(c) of
the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 was declared to be illegal
and unconstitutional and violative of
Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution
of India and respondents were directed
to consider claim of petitioner for
compassionate appointment within eight
weeks.
4. State has challenged said judgment
on the ground that upon marriage, a
daughter do not remain financially
dependent upon her parents and she
becomes dependent upon her husband
and she gets right of inheritance etc. in
family of her husband/in-laws of which
she becomes a member. It is further
contended that a woman is given
compassionate appointment in the event
of unfortunate death of her husband,
2025:UHC:2957-DB
who is the breadwinner in the family. It
is further contended that daughter
cannot be compared with the son as he
remains with his parents even after his
marriage, while a daughter goes away
from her parents and becomes member
of family of her husband, therefore, the
reasoning given by learned Single Judge,
for interfering with applicable Rules that
when a married son is entitled to
compassionate appointment upon death
of his father, then a married daughter
cannot be denied such benefit, is
unsustainable.
5. This Court is not impressed by said
submission. After considering similar
submissions, Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court in the case of Vimla
Srivastava (Writ C) No.60881 of 2015
and other connected petitions) decided
on 04.12.2015, has struck down pari-
materia provision contained in Rule
2(c)(iii) of the Rules dealing with
compassionate appointment in State of
U.P. by holding that it results in gender
discrimination.
6. A Full Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal No.187 of 2017 also had an
occasion to consider validity of Rule 2(c)
of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and it
was held that definition of family in Rule
2(c) of 1974 Rules has to be read down
to save it from being held
unconstitutional. Operative portion of
judgment rendered by Full Bench in
Special Appeal No.187 of 2017 is
reproduced below:-
"66. We answer the reference holding
that:-
2025:UHC:2957-DB
i. Question No.1 should be answered in
the affirmative. It is only a dependent
member of the family, of the Government
servant who died in harness, who is
entitled to be considered for appointment,
on compassionate grounds, both under
the 1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations.
ii. Question No.2 should also be answered
in the affirmative. Non-inclusion of "a
married daughter" in the definition of a
"family", under Rule 2(c) of the 1974
Rules and the note below Regulation 104
of the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying
her the opportunity of being considered
for compassionate appointment, even
though she was dependent on the
Government servant at the time of his
death, is discriminatory and is in violation
of Articles 14, 15 and 16 in Part III of the
Constitution of India.
iii. We, however, read down the definition
of "family", in Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules
and the note below Regulation 104 of the
1975 Regulations, to save it from being
held unconstitutional. As a result a
"married daughter" shall also be held to
fall within the inclusive definition of the
"family" of the deceased Government
servant, for the purpose of being provided
compassionate appointment under the
1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations."
7. Since view taken by learned Single
Judge in impugned judgment, is in
consonance with the view taken by Full
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
No.187 of 2017, therefore, we do not
find any reason to interfere with
impugned judgment. Accordingly, special
appeal is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.04.2025
Arti
ARTI SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE25
21F982, cn=ARTI SINGH
Date: 2025.04.28 18:08:14 +05'30'
