# Neha Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 970
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-13
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 4639 of 2015
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neha-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43328
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation-103-Compassionate
appointment-whether a married daughter
illegible for compassionate appointment?-
held-'No'-reasons discussed.
Held: Para-12
Accordingly, the petitioner being married
daughter of the late Suresh Nath Misra,
who died while working and discharging
his duties on the post of Assistant
Teacher of the institution known as
Public Inter College, Sampoorna Nagar
Kheri is not entitled for compassionate
appointment
under
Regulation
103
Chapter
III
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 , so I do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order
dated
21.1.2015
passed
by
opposite party no.2/ District Inspector of
Schools,
Lakhimpur
Kheri,
the
writ
petition liable to be dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 1 UPLBEC 517; AIR 2010 SC 1714;
2015 (33) LCD 1381.

## Text

970
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered. From facts and circumstances
of the case it is clear that the appellants
and victim are neighbours and had
initially no intention or premeditation for
murder/ homicide as they had been
involved in a civil litigation. He had not
used any formal weapon in the incident.
Appellant had no criminal history and is
in incarceration for about 24 years. Apart
from these mitigating circumstances, it is
noteworthy that the charged incident was
due to a sudden provocation without any
inducement. Appellant had committed the
charged act without any sufficient reason
and due to provocation caused by his own
act as he is a person of weak brainpower
who very often fails to control himself.
27.
When we apply the settled
principles
of
law
which
has
been
enumerated in the aforementioned cases, the
sentence of life imprisonment of the
appellant under Section 304 IPC appears to
be excessive and inappropriate. In the
present
case
after
considering
the
circumstances presented before the Sessions
Judge and before us during hearing of
appeal, it appears appropriate that, in the
present case the sentence should not exceed
more than 10 years' imprisonment. But
since
he
has
already
been
under
imprisonment for about 24 years, therefore
we are of the view that ends of justice
would be met if he be sentenced for the
period already undergone.
28. In view of the above facts and
discussion, the order of conviction u/s 302
IPC imposed on the appellant is hereby
modified u/s 304 IPC, and the sentence of
imprisonment for life is modified to the
period
of
imprisonment
already
undergone. With this modification of
conviction, punishment and sentence, the
appeal stands disposed off.
29. Let the copy of this judgment be
sent to Sessions Judge, Mirzapur of
ensuring compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
Service Single No. 4639 of 2015
Neha Mishra
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Som Kartik Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Regulation-103-Compassionate
appointment-whether a married daughter
illegible for compassionate appointment?-
held-'No'-reasons discussed.
Held: Para-12
Accordingly, the petitioner being married
daughter of the late Suresh Nath Misra,
who died while working and discharging
his duties on the post of Assistant
Teacher of the institution known as
Public Inter College, Sampoorna Nagar
Kheri is not entitled for compassionate
appointment
under
Regulation
103
Chapter
III
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 , so I do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order
dated
21.1.2015
passed
by
opposite party no.2/ District Inspector of
Schools,
Lakhimpur
Kheri,
the
writ
petition liable to be dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
(2015) 1 UPLBEC 517; AIR 2010 SC 1714;
2015 (33) LCD 1381.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)
2 All]
 Neha Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971
1.
Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Badrul Hassan, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.
1 and 2 and perused the record.
2. Undisputed facts in the present
case are that petitioner's father Sri Suresh
Nath Mishra ( now deceased) while
working on the post of Assistant Teacher
in Public Inter College, Sampoorna Nagar
Kheri, died during the tenure of his
service as such the petitioner, who is
married daughter of late Suresh Nath
Mishra submitted an application for
consideration
of
her
case
on
compassionate
ground
before
the
authority concerned. When no heed has
been paid by the official respondents so
she approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No. 6032 (SS) of 2014 ( Neha
Mishra Vs. Stte of U.P. And others) ,
disposed of by order dated 17.10.2014
with the following directions;
"In view of the above, this writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to file fresh representation
alongwith certified copy of this order
before respondent no.2, who shall,
thereafter, examine the claim of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, expeditiously and
preferably within next three months.
Needless to mention that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the claim of the petitioner and which shall
be examined by respondent no.2, while
taking decision in the matter."
3. Thereafter by means of order
dated 21.1.2015, opposite party no.2/
District Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur
Kheri rejected the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment on the ground
that petitioner is married daughter of late
Suresh Nath Mishra so she does not fall
within the definition of family, as per the
provisions as provided under Regulation
103 Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while assailing the impugned order
submits that the same is contrary to law as
laid down by this Court in the case of
Soniya Vs. State of U.P. , (2015) 1
UPLBEC, 517 relevant portion is quoted
herein below:-
"Merely because a daughter is
looking after her parents is not a criteria
for grant of compassionate appointment.
The object with which a married daughter
has been excluded from the expression
"Family" is based on an intelligible
differentia and the dependency should be
a
yardstick
for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment
and
is
commensurate with the sole object of
grant of compassionate appointment. It is
in these circumstances, the married
daughter has not been included in the
expression "Family" under Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974.
However for transfer of retail
licence, the criteria is "inheritance"
whereas in the matter of grant of
compassionate
appointment,
it
is
"dependency"
and
hence
ratio
of
judgment of Bombay High Court(supra)
applies in the facts and circumstances of
that particular case and is not applicable
in the facts of the present case.
So far as the judgments in R.
Jayamma(supra) and Manjula (supra) are
concerned, it is found that in both the
cases, the Karnataka High Court found
that the married daughter was financially
dependent upon her parents for the reason
972
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that in R. Jayamma(supra) the husband of
the petitioner (who was a married daughter)
has
become
mentally
deranged.
In
Manjula(supra) the petitioner has become
widow after filing of the petition. In
paragraph
10
of
the
judgment
in
Manjula(supra) it was observed that no
married daughter can be denied of an entry
into
the
service
on
compassionate
employment just because she is married.
There may be cases whether the married
woman may be living with her parents
notwithstanding her marriage for various
reasons and there may be cases where
married women would be dependent on their
parents on account of their individual
circumstances. Thus, the Court in those
cases, may read down the rule of dependency
in the facts and circumstances of the case
and issue a direction to provide employment
to dependent married daughters subject to
satisfaction of their dependency in the given
circumstances.
5.
Accordingly, he submits that
impugned order dated 21.1.2015 passed by
opposite party no. 2 thereby rejecting the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment on the ground that she is
married daughter of late Sri Suresh Nath
Mishra, is contrary to law, liable to be set
aside.
6. Sri Badrul Hassan, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
opposite parties while defending the
impugned order submits that as the
petitioner is married daughter of late
Suresh Nath Mishra so keeping in view of
the said fact as well as the definition of
'Family' given under Regulation 103
Chapter
III
of
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 , there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned order passed
by opposite party no.2.
7. In order to decide the controversy
involved in the present case , it will be
appropriate to consider the Regulation
103 Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 which reads as
under:-
" 103. In case an employee of teaching
or non-teaching staff of a recognized aided
institution who has been duly appointed in
accordance with the prescribed procedure,
dies in harness one member of his family not
below the age of 18 years shall be given
appointment
to
a
non-teaching
post
notwithstanding anything contrary in the
prescribed procedure for recruitment if such
member possesses requisite educational
qualifications prescribed for the post and is
otherwise suitable for appointment.
Explanation- For the purpose of this
regulation ' member of family' shall
means widow/widower, son, unmarried or
widowed daughter of the deceased."
8. Form the perusal of the
explanation of Regulation 103 Chapter III
of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
, it is apparently clear that the word which
has been used therein is family shall mean
widow/ widower, son, unmarried or
widowed daughter of the deceased family.
The word 'means' used therein is
exhaustive in nature and includes the
persons in the family of the deceased as
mentioned therein for the purpose of
giving
compassionate
appointment.
Taking into the said facts as well as the
settled principle of interpretation of
Statutes that a statutory provisions should
not be construed in a manner which
would lead to manifest absurdity , futility
, or anomaly or chaos. Reference may be
made to the decision of Apex Court in
H.S. Vankani and others Vs. State of
Gujrat and others, AIR 2010 SC 1714.
2 All] Sushila & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
9. Further, in the Sate of Uttar Pradesh
the matter in regard to compassionate
appointment is governed by the Rules known
as under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants
Government Servants Dying in Harness
(Ninth Amendment ) Rules, 2011 and the
definition of family is being given in Rule 2C
of the Rules which reads as under:-
"2(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 daughters-in-law;
(iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried
sisters and widowed mother dependent 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;
Provided that if a person belonging to
any of the above mentioned relations of the
deceased Government servant is not available
or is found to be physically and mentally unfit
and thus, ineligible for employment in
Government service, then only in such
situation the work "family" shall also include
the grandsons and the unmarried grand
daughters of the deceased Government
servant dependent on him."
10. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Sunita Bhadooria (Smt.) v. State of
U.P. and another (2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 after
considering the the provisions as provided
under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants Government Servants Dying in
Harness (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2011 has
held that the married daughter of the deceased
is not entitled for compassionate appointed
under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. (See
also Smt. Reeta Singh v. State of U.P. and
others (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1540, Sarita Singh
v. State of U.P. and others 2012 (91) ALR
323 and in Special Appeal No.553 of 2014
"Gayatri Singh v. State of U.P. and others ").
11. The said view has further reiterated by
this Court in the case of Sapana Tiwari Vs. Stte of
U.P. And others , 2015(33) LCD 1381 wherein it
is also held that married woman does not fall
within the definition of family of the deceased as
given under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants Government Servants Dying in
Harness (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2011.
12.
Accordingly, the petitioner being
married daughter of the late Suresh Nath Misra,
who died while working and discharging his
duties on the post of Assistant Teacher of the
institution known as Public Inter College,
Sampoorna Nagar Kheri is not entitled for
compassionate appointment under Regulation
103 Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 , so I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order dated
21.1.2015 passed by opposite party no.2/
District Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur
Kheri, the writ petition liable to be dismissed.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
Misc. Single No. 4794 of 2015
Sushila & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents