Allowed

Smt. Priti v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2020WRIA/19223/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition, setting aside an order that rejected a married daughter's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she did not qualify as 'family.' The court directed authorities to reconsider the claim within three months, reaffirming that marital status is no bar under the predecessor Neha Srivastava judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.5.2019 set aside. Direction issued to consider the claim within three months.

Smt. Priti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19223 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Priti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras on 2.5.2019, only on the ground that being a married daughter she does not form part of 'family'. The order is assailed relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others), which has been affirmed by the Apex Court with dismissal of Special Leave Petition No.22646 of 2016 (State of U.P. and another Vs. Neha Srivastava).

¶6

The writ petition was entertained and following orders were passed on 9.12.2019:-

¶7

"The petitioner is a married daughter of a Head Constable who died in harness on 04.04.2017. She filed an application for compassionate appointment on 02.04.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her case is not being considered as married daughter is not included, according to the respondents, in the list of eligible persons under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016, State of U.P. and another vs. Neha Srivastava affirming a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 863 of 2015, Neha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others which holds that married daughters are entitled to urge their candidature under the Dying in Harness Rules. The impugned order has been passed squarely on the ground that the petitioner being a married daughter is not entitled under the Rules of 1974 which is in the teeth of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, above referred.

¶8

A prima facie case is made out.

¶9

Issue notice.

¶10

Let a counter affidavit be filed by Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned State Law Officer on behalf of all the respondents within a period of four weeks to show cause why this petition be not admitted and heard forthwith.

¶11

List for admission on 10.01.2020 along with a report regarding status of pleadings.

¶12

Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2019

¶13

Issue notice returnable on 10.01.2020."

¶14

A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter reiterating the stand taken in the order impugned.

¶15

Perusal of the record would clearly go to show that the only ground taken to non-suit petitioner's claim is the fact that she is a married daughter. The definition of 'family' as is occurring in the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has already been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2016(1) ADJ 21, and the following observations have been made:-

¶16

"26.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.

¶17

27.We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-inHarness Rules.

¶18

28.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."

¶19

The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of Neha Srivastava (supra). The judgment of the Division Bench has found approval of the Apex Court with dismissal of Special Leave Petition No.22646 of 2016. In view of the adjudication made by this Court holding the provisions in the Rules of 1974 to be ultra virus, in so for as it discriminates against the married daughter and excludes her from the definition of 'family', the State Authorities would not be justified in discarding consideration of petitioner's claim only on the ground that she is a married daughter.

¶20

Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras dated 2.5.2019 stands set aside. A direction is issued to the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Petitioner's claim will not be ignored only on the ground that she happens to be a married daughter.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.8.2020 Anil

Smt. Priti v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priti v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awdhesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs Vice Chancellor and Another

Smt. Mansi Sharma and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vishwa Pratap Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Sarla Mishra Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Arun Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others