Dismissed¶17

Anushma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025WRIA/2486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; dying in harness; U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules 1974; Rule 2(c) definition of family; married sister excluded from family; unmarried sister; false declaration of marital status; dependency on deceased brother; Chief Minister Group Marriage Scheme; Section 498A IPC; Section 125 CrPC maintenance; U.P. Police Constable death; impugned order 08.01.2025; writ petition dismissed; Alok Mathur; Lucknow Bench; 2025:AHC-LKO:12909.

What did the court decide?

A married sister is not included in the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974, and consequently the respondents committed no error in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that she is a married sister outside the family definition. ¶16

Anushma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a married sister of the deceased Government servant, falls within the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 so as to be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Neither any F.I.R. under Section 498A of I.P.C. nor any proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner claiming maintenance from her husband, so the oral assertion of dependence on her late brother carried no evidentiary weight.

¶16

Key takeaways

An inquiry conducted by the respondents found the petitioner living peacefully with her husband, and hence it cannot be said that she was dependent on her late brother.ratio¶16
This Court found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application, held the writ petition bereft of merits, and dismissed it.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.), WRIT - A No. 2486 of 2025, decided 4.3.2025 — Compassionate appointment — U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 — Rule 2(c) defines 'family' as wife or husband, sons, and unmarried and widowed daughters; a married sister of the deceased Government servant is outside the definition. Petitioner, married on 08.10.2021 under the Chief Minister Group Marriage Scheme, had falsely declared herself unmarried while applying for appointment on the death of her brother, a Constable in the U.P. Police. Her claim of dependency failed: no F.I.R. under Section 498A of I.P.C. or application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance was ever moved, and the respondents' inquiry found her living peacefully with her husband. The rejection conveyed by impugned order dated 08.01.2025 was upheld as free from infirmity; the writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12909

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2486 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anushma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Mishra,Hari Krishna Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶5

The petitioner who is married and has sought compassionate appointment on the death of her brother Avinash Kumar who was working on in U.P. Police on the post of Constable and her application has been rejected by impugned order dated 08.01.2025 which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is the married sister of late Avinash Kumar who was working in the U.P. Police Service and had moved an application for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974). The application of the petitioner was scrutinized from which the respondents came to know that the petitioner had got married on 08.10.2021 under the Chief Minister Group Marriage Scheme.

¶7

The petitioner had filled up her form for claim of the appointment on compassionate ground which has been produced by learned Standing Counsel. As per the said form, the petitioner had falsely declared that she was unmarried and such a declaration was made knowing fully well that the definition of family as occurring in the Rules of 1974, unmarried sister was included in the definition of family and consequently the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶8

The respondents on coming to know of the fact that petitioner has been married have rejected her application solely on the ground that petitioner does not fall in the definition of family and consequently the benefit of Rules of 1974 would not be applicable on the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand has admitted that the petitioner was married to one Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sita Ram but it has been stated that marital life of the petitioner has not been successful and it has been stated that petitioner was fully dependent on her late brother at the time of his death and accordingly he submits that the petitioner was fully dependent on her late brother and consequently the petitioner deserves to get appointment on compassionate ground.

¶10

This Court has heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

¶11

The definition of family which is provided for in Rule 2(c) of Rules of 1974 is as under:-

¶12

"Rule 2(c) - "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:

¶13

(i) Wife or husband;

¶14

(ii) Sons;

¶15

(iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters"

¶16

A perusal of the aforesaid rules clearly indicates that married sister is not included in the definition of family and consequently the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a married sister and is not included in the definition of family, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner. A mere oral declaration has been made stating that the petitioner was dependent upon her late brother as learned counsel has fairly stated that neither any F.I.R. under Section 498A of I.P.C. nor under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was either moved by the petitioner claiming maintenance from her husband. An inquiry in this regard was also conducted by the respondents from where it was found that the petitioner is living peacefully with her husband and hence it cannot be said that she was dependent on her brother.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 4.3.2025/Ravi/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anushma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anushma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Hamid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shobhit Srivastava and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law Lko. and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ram Karan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 5 Others