Court No. - 35

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3241 of 2022

Petitioner :- Archana Srivastav

Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav,Dheeraj Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Sanjay Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Pranjal

Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Sri

Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order

dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Municipal Commissioner,

Gorakhpur, whereunder her claim for compassionate

appointment has come to be rejected solely on the ground that

she is a married daughter of the deceased employee.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the

ground that the definition of family consisting of the

dependents of the deceased under the U.P. Recruitment of

Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,

1974 (in short 'Rules, 1974') does not include the married

daughter because this Court has already held in the case of Smt.

Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others (2016) 1 ADJ 21

that the married daughter could not be discriminated against in

the matters of definition of family of consisting of dependents

of the deceased employee and therefore, to that extent the

relevant provisions of the Dying in Harness Rules held to be

ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, 3

& 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for respondent no. 5 as well as

learned Standing Counsel do not dispute the legal position as

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Upon the perusal of order impugned in this petition passed by

Municipal Commissioner, Gorakhpur, I find that the claim of

the petitioner has come to be rejected on the ground that

married daughter is not entitled under Rules, 1974 to

compassionate appointment.

6. The controversy regarding inclusion of married daughter

within the definition of family of deceased in so far as

compassionate appointment to the dependent is concerned

under the Rules, 1974 is no more res integra. In the case of

Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) vide paragraph nos. 22 to 28

the Court has held thus:

"22. 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 v. 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. The State of

Maharashtra, Writ Petitio 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