Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, and delay in application should not bar their claims if not attributable to them.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajit Kumar, J.)

Heard Sri Pankaj Kushwaha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri S.C.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by decision taken by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad/ respondent no. 2 dated 25th July, 2024 rejecting application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that after sixteen years of death of deceased employee, compassionate appointment cannot be offered as the emergent situation and financial crisis that had arisen on the death of employee no more existed due to lapse of time.

3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not responsible for any delay in the matter of claim to be set up for compassionate appointment as she pursued the matter and when no progress took place, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ A No. 59286 of 2016, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23rd December, 2016 holding that dependency of applicant upon deceased employee could not be established for the reason petitioner was a married women.

4. Upon appeal being preferred vide Special Appeal No. 61 of 2017 against the judgment of learned Single Judge, the Court directed for disposal of pending application if the petitioner filed a fresh before Deputy Director of Education, Prayagraj, Region Prayagraj, the authority shall be passing order in accordance with law after considering all the aspects of the case within three months. The operative portion of the order of the division bench dated 14th February, 2023 is reproduced hereunder:

“Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, Acting Chief Justice

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Sri S.C. Kushwaha, counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The appellant, Smt. Puja Yadav, is a married daughter of late Ranjit Yadav, who died in harness on 01.01.2008. From the pleadings, it appears that when the appellant was not given compassionate appointment, she made representation to the competent authority but nothing was done and ultimately, she was compelled to file writ petition before this Court. In the writ court, no counter was filed by the State. However, vide impugned judgement dated 23.12.2016, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant is a married daughter and does not fall in any of the category as provided by the Government in its notification.

In this appeal, the order of learned Single Judge has been challenged on the ground that even married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment.

Counsel for the State fairly submits that till date the case of the appellant has not been considered on merits and the same would be considered if the appellant files appropriate application within three weeks from today.

In view of the fair statement made by State counsel, without further entering into the merits of the case, the appeal is disposed off directing the appellant to file fresh application before the Deputy Director of Education, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj and the said authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering all the a