[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/862/2023 on 10 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:727
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No. Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS/862/2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand.
2. Petitioner's request for compassionate
appointment on account of death of her father was
turned down only on the ground that she is a
'married daughter'. Thus feeling aggrieved,
petitioner has approached this Court, challenging
the order dated 08.05.2023, passed by Additional
Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Kumaon
Region, Haldwani.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon
a judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in
SPA No. 187 of 2017, wherein it was held that non
inclusion of married daughter in the definition of
'family' under Rule 2(c) of the Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 is discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that reasoning given in the impugned order
that 'married daughter' was included in the
definition of family as given in the Rules only
w.e.f. 04.09.2019 is legally not sustainable as
judgment rendered by a constitutional Court is
always retrospective, therefore, according to him, it
will make no difference as to whether the
2026:UHC:727
amendment was incorporated in the applicable
rules in September, 2019 only.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that
petitioner's father died on 04.05.2016, therefore,
her case would be governed by the Rules as were
applicable at the time of death of her father.
6. This Court do not find substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel.
7. Law is well settled that judgment rendered by
a constitutional Court is always retrospective as it
merely declares a law and does not make the law.
8. Thus the reasoning given is unsustainable in
view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case Kanishk Sinha and Ors. vs. The
State of West Bengal and Ors. (27.02.2025 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0271/2025. Relevant extract of para 3
of the said judgment is extracted below:
"3.............. Now the law of prospective and
retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a
law made by the legislature is always prospective in
nature unless it has been specifically stated in the
statute itself about its retrospective operation, the
reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a
Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the
Court. The judgment of the Court will always be
retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself
specifically states that the judgment will operate
prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment
is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to
persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had
bonafidely done something with the understanding of
the law as it existed at the relevant point of time.
Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has
long been settled, as that would cause injustice to
many.
2026:UHC:727
9. The impugned order is therefore set aside.
The writ petition is allowed and the matter is
remitted back to the competent authority to re-
examine the claim of petitioner for compassionate
appointment in terms of the judgment rendered by
Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 187
of 2017. However, it shall be open to the competent
authority to examine other aspects, including the
question of dependence of the petitioner on her
father at the time of his death.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.02.2026
Mahinder/
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F
, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.02.10 18:34:07 +05'30'
