Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Manjul Srivastava – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 10928 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) (iii) - Employment and Service matter - The word ‘unmarried’ - Rejecting claim for compassionate appointment - Whether judgment of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21 striking down word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c) (iii) of Rules, entitles a married daughter to a consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment without an amendment to Rules made by State Government, expressly including ‘married daughter’ in the expression ‘family’, defined under Rule 2(c) – The word ‘unmarried’ has been struck down, applying the reputed doctrine of severability, that has always had approval of their Lordships of the Supreme Court.
Facts of the case: Petitioner’s mother, the late Pushpa Srivastava was inducted as an Assistant Teacher in the services of the Basic Education Board and appointed at the Primary School, Chaka, District Prayagraj. She was serving as the Headmistress of the School, last mentioned, when she passed away on 09.11.2016 - She was a permanent employee and sole bread winner of the family, comprising her husband, Vijay Kumar Srivastava, aged about 63 years and three married daughters: Parul Srivastava, Manjul Srivastava and Manshi Srivastava, aged about 32 years, 30 years and 28 years, in that order.
Findings of the court: Section 2(c) (iii) intra vires, purging it of the vice of discrimination on the ground of sex alone - What has remained back is a workable provision and is to be understood in manner that a daughter, irrespective of her marital status, is to be regarded as a member of deceased government servant’s family, in same manner as a son, whether married or unmarried - This Court, therefore, holds that in definition of deceased’s family, word ‘daughter’ has to be read unqualified by marital status of daughter and it requires no further amendment to Rules by Government to make right of a daughter of deceased government servant effective under Rules - Impugned order, therefore, passed on basis of a reading of Rule 2(c) (iii) of Rules with the word ‘daughter’ qualified by word ‘unmarried’ since struck down by this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (and followed in Neha Srivastava), is manifestly illegal - It is so as it proceeds on the basis of a statutory provision, that has been declared unconstitutional and void by this Court.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, Manjul Srivastava has impugned an order of June the 25th, 2020, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘the Rules).
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, which is taken on record.
3. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer, was granted time to file a short counter affidavit. He has not come up with any return.
4. Admit.
5. Heard forthwith.
6. Heard Mr. Ghan Shyam Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of respondent no.1.
7. The question, that arises for consideration here, is: “Whether the judgment of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21 striking down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c) (iii) of the Rules, entitles a married daughter to a consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment without an amendment to the Rules made by the State Government, expressly including ‘married daughter’ in the expression ‘family’, defined under Rule 2(c)?
8. The petitioner’s mother, the late Pushpa Srivastava was inducted as an Assistant Teacher in the services of the Basic Education Board and appointed at the Primary School, Chaka, District Prayagraj. She was serving as the Headmistress of the School, last mentioned, when she passed away on 09.11.2016. She was a permanent employee and the sole bread winner of the family, comprising her husband, Vijay Kumar Srivastava, aged about 63 years and three married daughters: Parul Srivastava, Manjul Srivastava and Manshi Srivastava, aged about 32 years, 30 years and 28 years, in that order. The petitioner’s mother died in harness, it is claimed on account of a heart attack.
9. It is the petitioner’s case that their family have become financially crippled. They were totally dependent on the deceased teacher because the petitioner’s father and the deceased’s husband is an unemployed man. In consequence, the family have plunged into a sudden economic crisis. The petitioner is also unemployed. She, therefore, applied for compassionate appointment on the post of an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, where her mother served. The petitioner asserts that she holds the necessary educational and other qualifications to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner holds degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education. She has also passed the Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2018 for the Primary Level. The petitioner has placed on record photostat copies of her certificates and degrees, which the Court has perused.
10. It is the petitioner’s further case that she submitted an application for consideration of her candidature under the Rules on 17.07.2019 in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj. The application is accompanied by all requisite documents. It is duly certified by the Headmistress, Primary School, Chaka, Prayagraj. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected by an order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj on the sole ground that a married daughter of a deceased Government servant is not included in the definition of the family of the deceased under the Rules, as amended by the 9th Amendment Rules, 2011, carried in the Government Order no.6/12/73/dkfeZd-2/2011-TC, Lucknow, dated 22.12.2011, issued by the Government of U.P. in the Department of Personnel, Anubhag-2.
11. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted.
12. Mr. Ghan Shyam Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is manifestly illegal as it denies the petitioner’s claim in vio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
