Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9803 of 2021

Petitioner :- Astha Mishra

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner is a married daughter. Her mother was employed

as Assistant Teacher who died on 9.5.2021 while she was in

service. An application for grant of compassionate

appointment has been moved by the petitioner, which was

rejected by the order impugned dated 16.7.2021 on the

ground that being a married daughter petitioner does not

form part of family under Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment

of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness

Rules, 1974.

A Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015,

has been pleased to hold as under:-

"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.

The writ petitions shall, accordingly, stand allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs."

A Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016 (The State of

Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Neha Srivastava) filed

against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed on

23.7.2019.

It is contended that in view of the Division Bench judgment

of this Court, respondents cannot deny consideration to

petitioner's claim only on the ground that she is not a

member of 'family'.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

states that in view of the pronouncement of law by this

Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P.

and Another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (DB), the authority concerned

shall revisit the issue.

The claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment

cannot be denied only on the ground that the petitioner is

a married daughter.

Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Order

impugned dated 16.7.2021 passed by the respondent no.2

(Annexure - 8 to the writ petition) stands quashed. A fresh

decision would be taken by the authority concerned within

a period of three months from today, keeping in view the

judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava

(supra).

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

Ranjeet Sahu