Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14288 of 2021

Petitioner :- Smt. Finif Lodhi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Additional Principal And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Maurya

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents no.1 to 4.

The mother of the petitioner, namely, Late Sudha Bhandari was working as

Basic Health Worker (Women) at Sub Centre Gola Budha of PHC Bhudabral,

District Meerut. She died on 16.04.2021 during her service period.

The petitioner being married daughter of Late Sudha Bhandari, submitted an

application on 12.06.2021 before the respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer,

Meerut seeking compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules,

1974. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Dying-

in-Harness Rules has been rejected by the respondent no.3-Chief Medical

Officer, Meerut vide order dated 07.07.2021 only on the ground that the

petitioner is a 'married daughter' of the deceased employee.

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

involved in the present case is squarely covered in the light of the judgement of

this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another,

reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (DB), wherein relying upon various judgements of

this Court it has been held that the exclusion of the married daughter in the

definition of 'family' under Dying-in-Harness Rules is discriminatory and this

Court clarified that married daughter of the deceased is also included in the

definition of family of the deceased in the same manner as a married son.

Accordingly, this Court has held that the 'married daughter' shall also be treated

to be included in definition of family and is entitled for compassionate

appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Thus, he submits that

respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, is under obligation to consider

the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Therefore, he submits that the reason assigned for rejecting the claim of the

petitioner by the respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, Meerut that there is no

Rule or Government Order which provides that the 'married daughter' is also

entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, is not sustainable and

dehors the judgement of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra).

Learned Standing Counsel would contend that since the definition of 'family' in

the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 does not include the 'married daughter',

therefore, the petitioner has rightly been denied compassionate appointment.

Learned Standing Counsel also could not point out from the impugned order that

except the aforesaid reason any other ground has been taken by the respondent

no.3 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the sole reason assigned by the

respondent no.3 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that there is no Rule or

Government Order which entitles the petitioner who is a 'married daughter' of

deceased employee, for being considered for appointment on compassionate

ground. The reason assigned, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra).

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is manifestly

erroneous and is in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in Vimla Srivastava

(supra).

Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3-

Chief Medical Officer, Meerut (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby

quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3-Chief Medical

Officer, Meerut to consider the petitioner's case for appointment under Dying-in-

Harness Rules, 1974, treating her to be eligible and pass a fresh order,

expeditiously, preferably within a period of t