Amrit Pal Kaur Duggal (Divorcee Daughter) Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sachivalaya Prashasan Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

This writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 23.6.2014 and 7.8.2023 whereby petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in terms of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974') has been rejected.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that while the State Government by the impugned order dated 23.6.2024 has rejected petitioner's claim on the ground that a divorced daughter does not come within purview of 'family' as per Rule 2 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974', the State Government while passing the subsequent order dated 7.8.2023 rejected petitioner's claim again in terms of Rule 5 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974' on the ground that 12 years have passed since demise of late Harbans Singh Duggal, father of petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner so belatedly.

¶13

It has further been submitted that opposite parties while passing the impugned orders have completely overlooked the fact that petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2011 itself as was admitted by the Government itself in the letter dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). However, the said application was rejected in the year 2014 only on the ground that petitioner does not come within the purview of 'family' since she was a divorced daughter.

¶14

Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the judgement and order dated 4.12.2015 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of

¶15

WRIA No. 5865 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another ( Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015) to submit that exclusion of married or divorced daughters of the employee from the definition of a term 'family' in terms of Rule 2 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974' has been held to be unconstitutional and therefore, petitioner would be covered within the term 'family'. It is submitted that the aspect of divorced daughter also coming within the purview of the Rules has also been adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gudiya Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No. 19 of 2012) .

¶18

It has also been submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 7.8.2023, on the ground of 12 years having passed from the date of demise of petitioner's father, opposite parties have lost sight of fact that petitioner, who had filed application for compassionate appointment 11 years ago itself and therefore, there was no delay on the part of petitioner in claiming compassionate appointment.

¶19

Learned State counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that since petitioner's father passed away on 15.8.2011, the primary purpose of providing compassionate appointment to petitioner comes to an end and particularly since compassionate appointment cannot be provided as a mode of alternative recruitment.

¶20

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that while earlier the State Government vide order dated 23.6.2014 has rejected petitioner's application on the ground that divorced daughters do not come within the purview of 'family' as defined under Rule 2 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974', subsequent impugned order dated 7.8.2023 has been passed on the ground that petitioner's father passed away 12 years ago and therefore, there was no occasion to grant compassionate appointment.

¶21

With regard to the first ground of rejection, it is evident that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) has clearly held that exclusion of married daughters from the scope of 'family' as defined under Rule 2 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974' to be unconstitutional. The said aspect has also been considered and decided by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gudiya Awasthi (supra) while holding that a divorced daughter on the same analogy also would come within the purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2 of the 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974'.

¶22

It is trite that judgement passed by constitutional Courts are retrospective in nature as held by Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. through Secretary Ministry of Labour and others Vs. Pooja singh

¶23

WRIA No. 5865 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

(Special Appeal Defective No. 660 of 2021 decided on 25.11.2021).

¶26

In such circumstances, the judgements rendered in the aforesaid two Division Benches would be applicable retrospectively particularly since exclusion of married or divorced daughters has been held to be unconstitutional.

¶27

So far as the second ground is concerned, it appears that the State Government has completely ignored the aspect that petitioner submitted her initial application for compassionate appointment in the year 2011 itself which is the year of demise of her father and therefore, there was no delay on the part of petitioner in seeking such employment.

¶28

In view of discussion made above, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 23.6.2014 and 7.8.2023 being erroneous are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and further writ of mandamus is issued commanding opposite party no. 1-Additional Chief Secretary, Sachivalaya Prashasan Vibhag, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to reconsider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in terms of her initial application preferred in the year 2011 and in terms of 'Dying in Harness Rules 1974'. Order pertains to the same shall be passed expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

¶29

Resultantly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶30

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶31

September 16, 2025

¶32

AKK

¶33

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amrit Pal Kaur Duggal (Divorcee Daughter) v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sachivalaya Prashasan Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Pal Kaur Duggal (Divorcee Daughter) v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sachivalaya Prashasan Vibhag Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yagya Narayan Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Avadh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I Lko. and 2 Others

Anjul Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Jai Dutt Bhatt Thru. His Next Friend Guardian Bhawani Das Bhatt Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry Defense New Delhi and Another

Sindhyachal Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 2 Others

Satendra Prakash Tyagi and 30 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko. and 18 Others