Dismissed

Sunita Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023/67/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal dismissed. The Allahabad High Court held that an unmarried daughter-in-law who is not widowed does not fall within the definition of 'family' under the 1974 Compassionate Appointment Rules and is not entitled to appointment. Delay condoned.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; Special Appeal dismissed with no merit.

Sunita Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 67 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sunita Srivastava

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher

¶6

Education Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others

¶7

Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Pratap Singh

¶9

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶10

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶11

(order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2023: Application for condonation of delay)

¶12

1. Heard Shri B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for appellant and Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent.

¶13

2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.

¶14

3. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶15

4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

¶16

[2]

¶17

5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶18

(Order on the Special Appeal)

¶19

1. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2022 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ A No.3460 of 2012: Sunita Srivastava vs. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Deptt. of Higher and others .

¶20

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father-in-law of the petitioner/appellant, Late Shiv Shanker Lal, died on 15.02.2010, while he was serving on the post of Lab Assistant in Maharani Lal Kunwari Mahavidyalaya, District Balrampur. On 06.04.2010, an application was moved seeking appointment of the appellant's/petitioner's husband, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava on compassionate ground. However, the petitioner's/appellant's husband was convicted in a criminal case and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The petitioner/appellant claimed that in April, 2012, the Secretary of the Institution informed her

¶21

[3]

¶22

mother-in-law that as the petitioner's/appellant's husband is a convicted person, he could not be appointed on compassionate ground. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, on 03.05.2012, the petitioner's/appellant's mother-in-law moved an application seeking petitioner's/appellant's appointment on compassionate basis.

¶23

3. The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of family in the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") . The Hon'ble Single Judge further observed that even otherwise, there does not seem any need of appointment because on the first date, the writ petition was adjourned and thereafter the matter has not been perused by the petitioner/appellant and whenever the matter is taken up it was got adjourned.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner/appellant was dependent on her father-in-law and, therefore, she is entitled for appointed on compassionate ground.

¶25

[4]

¶26

5. Regarding the entitlement of a daughter-in-law to claim appointment on compassionate basis, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India Thru. G.M. North Eastern Railway and others vs. Ms. Ranjeeta Bajpai W/o Late Munna Lal Bajpai in Writ Petition No.16857 (S/B) of 2016 decided on 01.08.2018 .

¶27

6. The aforesaid case related to the claim for compassionate appointment made by a widowed daughter-in-law, who was dependent on her father-in-law, who died in Harness. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court held that the claimant being heir of the predeceased son and bring dependent on the deceased employee, may be construed as one of the family members of the deceased. However, the petitioner/appellant in the present case, is not a widowed daughter-in-law and, therefore, decision in the case of Ms. Ranjeeta Bajpai (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶28

7. The definition of 'family' contained in Rules, 1974 as amended up to date, provides as follows:-

¶29

[5]

¶30

"(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:-

¶31

(i) wife or husband;

¶32

(ii) sons/adopted sons;

¶33

(iii) daughters, (including adopted daughters) and widowed daughters-in-law;

¶34

(iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;

¶35

(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court:

¶36

Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word "family" shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried grand daughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him."

¶37

8. The petitioner/appellant being a daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, does not fall within a definition of term 'family' of the Rules, 1974.

¶38

[6]

¶39

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the petitioner/appellant is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment consequent to death of her father-in-law.

¶40

10. The special appeal lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶41

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶42

Order Date :- 14.2.2023

¶43

Shubhankar

¶44

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunita Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and 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

Rafi Parvez Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D.and Anr. Vs U.P. State Public Sevice Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.

Naresh Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Ramhet Vs Sunita Devi and Another

Sayyed Mohd. Faizan Vs Hina Parveen

Sonam Devi and Another Vs Na