Allahabad High Court
Lalita Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2021
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6066 of 2021 Petitioner :- Lalita Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The petitioner is the daughter of Late Ajab Singh, who was working as Head Master of Higher Secondary School, Jamalapur, Vikas Khand Kuraoli, District Mainpuri. He died on 08.11.2018 during his service period. Petitioner being married daughter of Late Ajab Singh, submitted an application on 24.02.2020 which was received by the office of B.S.A., Mainpuri, seeking compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. When no heed was paid on the representation of the petitioner, she filed a Writ-A No.9588 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order 11.11.2020, directing the Secretary of Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad to look into the matter, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
In pursuance of the Court's order dated 11.11.2020, District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, respondent no.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules by passing the impugned order dated 05.02.2021.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in the case of Writ-A No.10928 of 2020 (Manjul Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others) relying upon various judgements of this Court has held that the exclusion of the married daughter in the definition of 'family' under Dying-in-Harness Rules is discriminatory and this Court clarified that married daughter of the deceased is also included in the definition of family of the deceased in the same manner as a married son. Accordingly, this Court has held that the married daughter shall also be treated to be included in definition of family and is entitled for compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
Thus, he submits that the reason assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the District Basic Education Officer that there is no Rule or Government Order which provides that the married daughter is also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, is not sustainable and dehors the judgement of this Court in the case of Manjul Srivastava (supra).
Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the sole reason assigned by the respondent no.3 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner that there is no Rule or Government Order which entitles the petitioner who is a married daughter of deceased employee for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The reason assigned, cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjul Srivastava (supra).
Learned Standing Counsel also could not point out from the impugned order that except the aforesaid reason no other ground has been taken by the respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and is in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in Manjul Srivastava (supra).
Therefore, the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. This Court further commands the respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's case for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, treating her to be eligible, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioner may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021 NS