Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3424 of 2019

Petitioner :- Aruna

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

Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh,Vivek Kumar

Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

father of the petitioner was working on the post of Sweeper-

cum-Chowkidar under the respondents and he died on 4th July,

2018 during service.

He submits that the petitioner is the elder married daughter and

being the dependent of the deceased employee, she has applied

for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the the

claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents by

the impugned order on the ground that married daughter has no

right for being appointed on compassionate grounds under the

U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants

Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules

of 1974) and does not come within the definition of family.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

of this Court passed in Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and

another, 2016 (1) ALJ 678 and submits that the non-inclusion

of the married daughter in the ambit of family under the Rules

of 1974 is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of

India and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for

appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the law laid

down by this Court in the aforesaid case.

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the proposition of

law laid down by this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava

(supra).

The relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Vimla

Srivastava (supra) is extracted hereunder:-

"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"

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties and the view taken by this Court

in Vimla Srivastava (supra), the impugned order dated 11th

December, 2018 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Meerut is

hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is

remanded back to the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut to consider

the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate

appointment in accordance with law and in view of the law laid

down by this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra).

The respondent no.3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two

months from the date of production of a certified copy of this

order.

Order Date :- 23.11.2022

Bhaskar

Digitally signed by BHASKAR

Date: 2022.11.24 17:22:57 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad