Compassionate Appointment Of A Daughter Cannot Be Rejected Solely On The Ground Of Her Marital Status: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment of a married daughter cannot be rejected solely on the ground of her marital status.
While allowing the writ petition filed by a married daughter for compassionate appointment, the Allahabad High Court has asked the concerned Authorities to reconsider the claim and decide in accordance with the law within two months.
The Bench of Justice Abdul Moin ordered, “Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is set aside. The respondents are required to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment keeping in view the discussion made above. Let such a decision be taken in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
Advocate Tushar Verma appeared for the Petitioner whereas Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner’s father while working in the post of Driver in the office of Executive Engineer had died in harness. Aggrieved, she filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by one of the Respondents who rejected her claim for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on the ground that she is a married daughter.
The Court also observed, “So far as the ground of the petitioner not being dependent on the deceased government servant, as has been taken in the counter affidavit, is concerned, even the said ground may not detain the Court inasmuch as Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.”
Rejecting the ground that the mother of the Petitioner is receiving the pension every month and had also received the other retiral dues and financial benefits, the Court said that this cannot be considered to be a bar as no such condition has been stipulated in the Rules, 1974. Reliance was placed on Pramod Kumar Rajak Vs. Registrar General High Court Allahabad(ALL HC 2011).
The Court said, “So far as the ground taken by the respondents of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhavi Mishra (supra) having held that a married daughter as not being dependent and hence not entitled for compassionate appointment, is concerned, a perusal of the judgment in the case of Madhavi Mishra (supra) would indicate that the Division Bench of this Court was considering the provisions of Regulations, 1995 and not the provisions of the Rules, 1974 rather the Division Bench has gone to the extent of indicating that the order of Single Judge, whose judgment had been challenged in the Special Appeal, had wrongly invoked the provisions of the Rules, 1974… Thus, the said judgment would have no applicability in the instant case, more particularly, when the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is governed by the Rules, 1974,”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation and Water Resources Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Ors (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:27811)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Tushar Verma and Prashant Kumar Singh.
Respondents: Standing Counsel
