Allahabad High Court
Manju Kureel vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 March, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved- 04.03.2024 Delivered- 12.03.2024 Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:43505 Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6140 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manju Kureel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner is a divorced daughter who is claiming compassionate appointment as her father died in harness on 3rd August 2009.
2. First attempt of petitioner was rejected by an order dated 20th May 2004 on a ground that 'divorced daughter' was not included in the definition of 'family' under relevant rules. Later on, she got mutual divorce on 24th July 2011 i.e. much after death of his father.
3. Above referred order dated 20.05.2004 was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a Writ Petition No. 3922/2019, which was allowed and impugned order therein was set aside by this Court vide order dated 20th December 2019 on a ground that 'divorced daughter' is also included in the definition of family and it was directed to consider her claim afresh.
4. In view of above, petitioner filed a representation which was considered and rejected by impugned order dated 3rd June 2020 on a ground that 'divorced daughter' was not included in Rule 2(c)(iii) of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
5. In above referred circumstances, the petitioner has filed present petition.
6. Sri Virendra Pratap Pal, learned Advocate for petitioner has submitted that petitioner got married on 27th April 2001 but due to matrimonial dispute, she started living with his father since 30th January 2004 and thereafter in the year 2011, application for divorce on mutual consent was filed and it was allowed by an order dated 24th July 2011.
7. Learned Advocate has further submitted that claim of petitioner was rejected on erroneous grounds, ignoring judgement passed by this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Noopur Srivastava, 2019 (2) ADJ 585 (DB) (LB), that 'unmarried daughter' also includes 'divorced daughter' and for that amendment was not required under relevant rules. This aspect was not considered by the respondent concerned and her claim was illegally rejected.
8. Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar, learned Advocate for respondents has fairly submitted that impugned order may not be sustainable since claim of petitioner could not be rejected on a ground that she is a divorced daughter, however, he has referred judgement passed by Supreme Court in Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and another vs. V. Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20 that the petitioner would come under a 'divorce daughter' only when she got divorced before death of her father. In present case, her father died in the year 2009 whereas she got mutual divorce in the year 2011, therefore, she was not dependent and he referred following para of said judgement -:
"8.2 Apart from the above one additional aspect needs to be noticed, which the High Court has failed to consider. It is to be noted that the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012. The respondent herein-original writ petitioner at that time was a married daughter. Her marriage was subsisting on the date of the death of the deceased le. on 25.03.2012. Immediately on the death of the deceased employee, the respondent initiated the divorced proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013, the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent. That immediately on the very next day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent herein on the basis of the decree of divorce by mutual consent applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid chronology of dates and events would suggest that only for the purpose of getting appointment on compassionate ground the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained. Otherwise, as a married daughter she was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise also the High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to consider the application of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground as 'divorced daughter'. This is one additional ground to reject the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground.
8.3 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that at the time when the deceased employee died on 25.03.2012 the marriage between the respondent and her husband was subsisting. Therefore, at the time when the deceased employee died she was a married daughter and therefore, also cannot be said to be 'dependent' as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1996. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the 'divorced daughter' may fall in the same class of 'unmarried daughter' and 'widowed daughter" in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she-respondent herein was not the 'divorced daughter' as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee. Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee."
[emphasis supplied]
9. Heard learned Advocates for parties and perused the record.
10. It is not in dispute that father of petitioner died in 2009 i.e. 15 years ago, therefore, at this stage, object of compassionate appointment i.e. to tide over immediate financial crisis would not be available and in this regard few paragraphs of a judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 219 and relevant para 32 thereof is quoted below-:
"32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source."
11. The best case of petitioner is that she being a divorced daughter is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment but following factor still goes against her -:
(i) The petitioner got divorced in 2011 i.e. after death of his father in 2009.
(ii) Her claim that she was staying with her father since 2004 due to matrimonial dispute.
These grounds would not be sufficient to allow claim of petitioner since there is no material on record to consider said averment to be true except referred in petitioner for mutual divorce.
12. Otherwise also, there is a huge gap between the date of separation and date of mutual divorce, therefore, above referred paragraphs of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka (supra) would be relevant and squarely covers the facts of present case against the petitioner.
13. In these circumstances, at this belated stage, the very object of compassionate appointment is also not available and that in facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner could not be considered to be 'dependent' under relevant Rules.
14. Hence, petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- March 12, 2024 N. Sinha [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]