IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'family' under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, must include married daughters, and the eligibility for compassionate appointment is determined by the law in effect at the time of the employee's death.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the Nagar Ayukt') dated 19.08.2023, rejecting the petitioner's claim, seeking compassionate appointment.

2. The petitioner's mother, Rani Devi was a Safai Karmi, employed with the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'Nigam'). She was last posted in Ward No.105 of the Nigam. She died in harness on 22.09.2012. The petitioner's mother left behind her, her husband and two daughters. Now, the petitioner, Smt. Sonam and her sister, Smt. Santosh Devi wife of Anil Kumar, both are married women. The petitioner has staked claim for compassionate appointment, alleging that she, her husband and her father, who stay with her in the same home, where her deceased mother did, were all dependent financially upon her mother. The petitioner's sister, who stays with her husband, has given a no objection on affidavit to the consideration of the petitioner's claim, saying that she is happily married and self-reliant. The petitioner's father has given an affidavit, which is both in the nature of a no objection and an affirmation of the petitioner's claim. The petitioner had moved for compassionate appointment on 4th January, 2013, whereas her mother died in harness on 22nd September, 2012. Apparently, the petitioner had moved with all promptitude.

3. Since the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was not considered and gathering dust on the Nagar Ayukt's bureau, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.16131 of 2022, seeking a direction for the consideration of her claim by a writ of this Court issued for the purpose. Writ-A No.16131 of 2022, earlier instituted by the petitioner as aforesaid, was disposed of directing the Nagar Ayukt to decide the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment dated 4th January, 2013. It was ordered that the application be decided in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy made in the aforesaid writ petition. It is in consequence of this order that the Nagar Ayukt has proceeded to reject the petitioner's claim by the order impugned dated 09.08.2023. One of the considerations that prevailed with the Nagar Ayukt in rejecting the petitioner's claim was that she was a married daughter and the amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules of 1974'), including the married daughters within the definition of ‘family’, was made on 4th May, 2022, much after the petitioner's mother died in harness on 22.09.2012. The Rules of 1974, as these stood on the date of death of the employee, would apply. The amended Rules of 1974, including the married daughter within the definition of the deceased's family would not be attracted. Of course, there was another consideration also, that weighed with the Nagar Ayukt in rejecting the petitioner's claim, to which allusion would shortly be made. Nevertheless, the position of the law that a married daughter was not included in the definition of the family under the Rules of 1974, as these stood at the time of death of the petitioner's mother, were held to govern the petitioner's right and materially affected the Nagar Ayukt's decision to reject the petitioner's claim.

4. This Court vide order dated 04.10.2023 issued notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and required the Nagar Ayukt to file his personal affidavit within two weeks, showing cause why the impugned order be not quashed and further directions made. The Nagar Ayukt's personal affidavit dated 21.10.2023 was filed in Court on 01.11.2023. It was recorded to be a counter affidavit. The petitioner waived his right to file a rejoinder. On the aforesaid set of pleadings, this petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

5. Heard Mr. Rajesh Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yashwant Singh, learn