Back
2020 Supreme(All) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BHARATI SAPRU, SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, JJ.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Raj Laxmi and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 617 of 2016
Decided On : 22-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Abhishek Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Chintamani Yadav.
Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'family' under the Dying-in-Harness Rules was held to be illegal and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - Dying in Harness Rules - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, Section 2(c) - Rule 2(c)(iii)
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the divorced married daughter was not included in the definition of 'family' as described under Section 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, relying upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Court, which held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression 'family' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 was illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issue revolved around the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'family' under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and the constitutional validity of such exclusion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression 'family' in Rule 2(c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules was illegal and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. The application for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent under the dying in Harness Rules due to the death of her father, was rejected vide order dated 05.5.2014, on the ground that the divorced married daughter was not included in the definition of "family" as described under Section 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1974).
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner-respondent has approached the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 18.3.2016 allowed the writ petition relying upon a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 60881 of 2015, Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected matters wherein the Division Bench had held that the exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of the expression of "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974 was illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and accordingly the Division Bench struck down the word unmarried in Rule 2 (c)(iii) of the Rules 1974.
3. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter:
“Specifically in the context of compassionate appointments various High Courts have taken the view that a woman who is married cannot be denied entry into service on compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage. This view was taken by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Manjula vs. State of Karnataka, 2005 (104) FLR 271. The same view has been adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5592 of 2009, decided on 13 August 2014, where it was held that the exclusion of a married daughter for the grant of a retail kerosene license on the death of the license holder was not justifiable. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held as follows:
“This exclusion of a married daughter does not appear to be based on any logic or other justifiable criteria. Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a legal representative of a license holder cannot be held to her disadvantage in the matter of seeking transfer of license in her name on the death of the license holder. Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India the right of a citizen to carry on any trade or business is preserved. Under Article 19(6) reasonable restrictions with regard to professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any trade or business could be imposed. Similarly, gender discrimination is prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution. The exclusion of a married daughter from the purview of expression "family" in the Licensing Order of 1979 is not only violative of Article 15 but the same also infringes the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”
The same view has been adopted by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in S. Kavitha vs. The District Collector, Writ Petition No. 16153 of 2015, decided on 9 June 2015. A learned Single Judge of the Kolkata High Court in Purnima Das vs. State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No. 33967 (W) of 2013 decided on 19 March 2014 has held that while appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, at the same time, it was not open to the State to adopt a discriminatory policy by excluding a married daughter from the ambit of compassionate appointment.
We are in respectful agreement with the view which has been expressed on the subject by diverse judgments of the High Courts to which we have made reference above.
During the course of submissions, our attention was also drawn to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mudita vs. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 49766 of 2015, decided on 10 September 2015. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to deal with an identica
