Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1466 (ALL)

Snehlata v. State of U. P.

2016-04-20

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Snehalata is before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15397 of 2016 (Snehalata v. State of U.P. and others) by which the claim of the appellant/petitioner has been negated on the ground that being a married daughter of the deceased employee she does not fall within the definition of the word 'family' under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 (in short "the Rules of 1974") and as such her claim cannot sustain. 2. It appears from the record that the father of the appellant namely Late Rajpal Singh was working as regular employee on the post of Head Master in Harnam Prasad Junior High School, Raghunathpur, Sileta, Post Encholi, District Sambhal. The father of the petitioner-appellant had died-in-harness on 06.06.2014 leaving behind his wife and married daughter namely Snehalata. The husband of petitioner/appellant is unemployed and mother of appellant is living with her. The economic condition of appellant is pitiable and it is not possible to run the family of unemployed husband and her mother smoothly. The petitioner-appellant had moved an application before the respondents concern for giving compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974. The mother of the petitioner along with other members of the family had also submitted their no objection. Finally the respondent concern had rejected the claim of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that being a married daughter her case did not fall in the category of definition of 'family under the Rules of 1974. Assailing the said order, the petitioner-appellant has approached this Court by means of writ petition in question being Writ Petition No. 15397 of 2016. Learned Single Judge had proceeded into the matter and vide order dated 06.04.2016 had dismissed the writ petition with following observations: - "Heard Sri Surendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 4 and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 5. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 01.02.2016 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is the married daughter of the deceased Raj Pal Singh, who was working as Headmaster in the Harnam Prasad Junior High School, Raghunathpur, Sileta, Post-Encholi, District Sambhal. 1, 3 and 5. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 01.02.2016 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is the married daughter of the deceased Raj Pal Singh, who was working as Headmaster in the Harnam Prasad Junior High School, Raghunathpur, Sileta, Post-Encholi, District Sambhal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 04.12.2015 passed in Writ petition (C) no. 60881 of 2015 Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. And Another along with other connected Writ Petitions, wherein the Division Bench has struck down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974 and has held that the petitioner shall not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of her marital status. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Km. Shehnaj Begum v. State of U.P. And Others, (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2398 and submits that the Full Bench of the Court has held the definition of the word 'Family' as defined in Section 2 (c) to be exhaustive and submits that a married daughter does not fall within the meaning of 'Family' and therefore the claim of petitioner being a married daughter cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The word 'Family' has been defined in Section 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-In-Harness Rules, 1974 which reads as under: - "(c) "Family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) wife or husband; (ii) sons/adopted sons; (iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughter-in-law; (iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother depended on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried; (v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court: " The Full Bench of this Court in Km. Shehnaj Begum (Supra) has considered the term 'Family' as defined in Section 2 (c) of the 1974 Rules and by way of conclusion has held the definition to be exhaustive. Shehnaj Begum (Supra) has considered the term 'Family' as defined in Section 2 (c) of the 1974 Rules and by way of conclusion has held the definition to be exhaustive. A married daughter does not find mention in the definition of 'family' and if the word 'family' has been held to be exhaustive it would mean that a married daughter would have no claim to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Km. Shehnaz Begum (supra) the petitioner has no claim for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed". 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance in the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 04.12.2015 in which Hon'ble the Division Bench had proceeded to allow the claim of the married daughter for compassionate appointment and held 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 Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: - "We are in respectful agreement with the view which has been expressed on the subject by diverse judgments of the High Courts to which we have made reference above. During the course of submissions, our attention was also drawn to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mudita v. State of U.P. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to deal with an identical issue of the right of a married daughter to be considered under the Dying-in-Harness Rules observed that a married daughter is a part of the family of her husband and could not therefore be expected to continue to provide for the family of the deceased Government servant. The judgment proceeds on the premise that marriage severs all relationships that the daughter may have had with her parents. In any case it shuts out the consideration of the claim of the married daughter without any enquiry on the issue of dependency. The judgment proceeds on the premise that marriage severs all relationships that the daughter may have had with her parents. In any case it shuts out the consideration of the claim of the married daughter without any enquiry on the issue of dependency. In the view that we have taken we are unable to accept or affirm the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and are constrained to hold that Mudita does not lay down the correct position of the law. 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. We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dyingin-Harness Rules. 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. The writ petitions shall, accordingly, stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the order passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the order has been passed by learned Single Judge on 27.10.2015 and at the relevant pointed of time as per the definition of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 the married daughter was excluded from the definition of 'family' for the purposes of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded and passed the order, which was applicable at the relevant point of time. 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 6. As indicated above, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Supra) while proceeding with the matter had held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of 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. (Supra) while proceeding with the matter had held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of 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. The Court had also struck down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules and proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the applicant on the basis of all relevant facts and circumstances and directed that her right could not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status. 7. As the coordinate Bench of this Court has also decided the question, the same is binding on us and holds the field. The judicial propriety demands that the same view be followed by the coordinate Benches. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge dated 06.04.2016 cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, it is directed that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioner shall not be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment only on the ground of her marital status. 9. The special appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.