1

Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 767 of 2022

Appellant :- Sadhana Ranjan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Vivekanand,Kalp Nath

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and have

perused the record.

2.

This intra court appeal is against the judgment

and order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge in Writ A No. 2485 of 2022 whereby the writ

petition of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order

rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment dated

18.12.2019 has been dismissed.

3.

The undisputed facts of the case are that

appellant's father died in harness on 29.01.2009. Consequent

to his death, petitioner's brother was granted compassionate

appointment in the year 2016. While he was undergoing

training, he died in an accident. The mother of the

petitioner moved an application that in lieu of her son, the

petitioner be appointed. When orders were not passed on

her plea for compassionate appointment, the writ petition

2

was filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the

authorities to consider her claim. This writ petition was

disposed off by requiring the authorities to consider the

claim of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the claim of the

petitioner was considered and rejected by order dated

18.12.2019 on the ground that in the definition of family,

as provided in Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of

Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,

1974 (1974 Rules), a married sister is not included.

4.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is married

and she is not claiming appointment in lieu of death of her

father but on account of death of her brother who was

granted compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his

father in harness.

5.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition challenging the order rejecting petitioner’s claim for

compassionate appointment on the ground that there is no

explanation as to why the petitioner did not move any

application for appointment after the death of her father

and that there was no material to demonstrate that she was

dependent on her father. Moreover, compassionate

appointment is to be accorded to tide over sudden crises

and not after a long gap from the date of death.

6.

Questioning the order of the learned Single

Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the petitioner had staked her claim on death of her brother

in the year 2016 therefore, there was no delay on her part;

that the word 'married' prefixed to daughter as it occurs in

3

Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the 1974 Rules has been found ultra vires

Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India by a Division

Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of

U.P. and another: 2016 (1) ADJ 21, therefore, a sister

regardless of her marital status would be entitled to be

considered for compassionate appointment on death of her

brother.

7.

The aforesaid contention is not acceptable for the

reason that in Smt. Vimla Srivastava's case (supra), this

court was dealing with a situation where son of the

deceased, whether married or unmarried, was considered

part of the family, whereas, a daughter could be considered

if she was unmarried. This, the court found discriminatory

and, therefore, the word 'married' prefixed to daughter was

struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the

Constitution of India. But, here, the situation is a bit

different inasmuch as, neither married brother nor married

sister is considered part of the family. Consequently, the

ratio laid down in Smt. Vimla Srivastava's case (supra) is

not applicable.

8.

That apart, it is well settled that compassionate

appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right. The

right flows eith