The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not supplant the statutory definition of 'family' to include individuals not specifically mentioned, and will uphold the interpretation of the law as prescribed.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi assisted by Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the opposite party No. 2 as contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on a suitable post according to her qualification in the department forthwith.

(iii)....

(iv)....”

3. This is second writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground after the death of her father-in-law on 02.06.2018, who was serving as Head Constable in U.P. Civil Police and died in harness.

4. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Appeal No. 8279 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2022. Operative portion of the said order would read as under:

“In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.3.2019 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition expeditiously, say within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and communicate its decision to the petitioner.”

5. In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner moved a representation seeking appointment on compassionate ground under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1974’). Said representation has been rejected vide detailed order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, U.P.

6. Late father-in-law of the petitioner, Sri Dinanath Pandey, who was working as Head Constable and died in harness, has left behind his wife Smt. Durga Devi, three sons namely, Sachidanand Pandey, Krishna Nand Pandey and Sampurnanand Pandey, and a married daughter namely, Sunita Sharma. Petitioner’ husband is Sampurrnand Pandey.

7. The petitioner moved an application on 06.03.2019 in the Department for giving her appointment on compassionate ground along with affidavits of other family members including her husband that they would have no objection, if the appointment is offered to the petitioner.

8. It has been noted in the impugned order that the husband of the petitioner are three brothers and one sister. Elder brothers of husband of the petitioner are living in Dehradun and are in job. In the application, it was said that some criminal case was registered against elder brother of her husband, the entire responsibility to look after the mother of the husband is on the petitioner, who is daughter-in-law of the deceased. Details of the family members, who are from Late Deena Nath Pandey, have been given in chart in Para 6 of the impugned order.

9. Considering the definition of the family under the Rules, 1974 in which widowed daughter-in-law is specifically included and a daughter-in-law whose husband is alive is excluded from the purview of the definition clause, the competent authority has been of the opinion that the petitioner being a daughter-in-law whose husband is alive would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules, 1974.

10. Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasoning in the impugned order is unsustainable as the authority is required to see that whether the family