Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2455 (ALL)

ANJANA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-12-04

B.K.NARAYANA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 3.11.2008 and 27.6.2008 passed by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition by which the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the husband and the father-in-law of the petitioner, Late Sri Narayan Shukla, were murdered on 6.5.2008. At the time of his death, the father-in-law of the petitioner was working as Office Assistant in the office of the opposite party No. 4. The father-in-law of the petitioner left behind his widow, his daughter-in-law (petitioner) and two minor grand children, who after the death of petitioner’s father-in-law and petitioner’s husband were left without any source of livelihood. 4. After the murder of her father-in-law, the petitioner made an application before the opposite party No. 4 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by the opposite party No. 3 as well as the opposite party No. 4 by the impugned orders only on the ground that the daughter-in-law does not fall within the definition of word ‘family’ as defined under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ground on which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in the Corporation has been rejected is totally misconceived and unsustainable as it has been held in several decisions of this Hon’ble Court that daughter-in-law is covered within the definition of family members under the provisions of the Rules for the purpose of being given appointment on compassionate ground. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (5) ADJ 501 : 2006 (3) ESC 1825. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (5) ADJ 501 : 2006 (3) ESC 1825. Relevant paragraph-10 of the aforesaid judgment reads hereunder : "As a result of foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that word ‘family’ in the provisions must be construed liberally having due regard to the inclusive definition of the term ‘family’ as defined in and object sought to be served by the rules. The petitioner in the instant case being the daughter-in-law of the deceased and admittedly, the husband of the petitioner has been murdered and is no more, therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to be construed as one of the family members of the deceased in view of the inclusive definition of the word ‘family’ and is thus entitled to be considered for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon Division Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and another v. Lalti Devi and another, 2008 (2) ADJ 428 (DB), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, Rule 2 (c) — Daughter in law of deceased Government Servant becomes a member of family of her husband and is included in definition of ‘family’ of father-in-law and after his death, in absence of any other legal heirs, she is entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has vehemently argued that the orders passed by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 do not suffer from any infirmity and do not make out any case for interference. 8. After carefully examining the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I hold in view of the proposition laid down in the cases of Sanyogita Rai (supra) and Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi (supra), the daughter-in-law is included within the definition of word ‘family’ defined under the Rules and the petitioner, as such, is entitled for appointment under the Rules. The ground on which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the opposite parties is totally misconceived and unwarranted. 9. The ground on which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the opposite parties is totally misconceived and unwarranted. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders dated 3.11.2008 and 27.6.2008 passed by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are quashed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the aforesaid decisions and appoint her against a suitable post within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. —————