Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2420 of 2022

Petitioner :- Smt.Madhuri

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,Harish Chandra

Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari

quashing the impugned order dated 30.08.2021 passed by

respondent no.2.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus

commanding/directing the respondent no.2 to decide the

representation of the petitioner dated 20.11.2021 pending

before him within stipulated period as may be fixed by this

Hon'ble Court.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioner in service

at the place of her father, in case the application is allowed by

respondent no.2......."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

being daughter of deceased employee, who died in harness on

08.09.2019, made an application/representation before the

respondents authorities for consideration of her appointment on

compassionate ground but the said representation has been

rejected by the impugned order dated 30.08.2021 by the

respondent no.2 on the ground that the petitioner is the married

daughter/divorce daughter and would thus not be entitled for

consideration under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of

Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Before this

Court, it is fairly conceded by the respondents that the reasons

assigned to reject the claim of the petitioner would not sustain

in the eye of law.

Insofar as the question of a married daughter/divorce daughter

being entitled to the benefits of the 1974 Rules is concerned, it

is conceded that the same stands settled in light of the

declaration of law in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs.

State of U.P. and another decided on 04.12.2015 passed in

Writ Petition No. 60881 of 2015. In that decision the Division

Bench upon due consideration of the Rules held as follows:-

"In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters

from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the

Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being

violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c)

(iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

In consequence, we direct that the claim of the petitioners for

compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarify

that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the

claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of all the

relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioners shall not

be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their

marital status."

Following the decision in case of Vimla Srivastava (supra), a

Division Bench of the Court in the case of Neha Srivastava Vs.

State of U.P. and another decided on 23.12.2015 passed in

Special Appeal Defective No. 863 of 2015, observed as follows:

-

"As indicated above, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.

Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Supra) while

proceeding with the matter had held that the exclusion of

married daughters from the ambit of expression "family" in

Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and

unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the

Constitution. The Court had also struck down the word

'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules

and proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to consider

the claim of the applicant on the basis of all relevant facts and

circumstances and directed that her right could not be excluded

from consideration only on t