# Seema Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 908
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No.9842 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/seema-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49286
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Intermediate Act, 1921Regulation
no.
103-Compassionate
Appointment-Petitioner's
claim
for
Compassionate Appointment rejected-on the
ground that she is divorced daughter of the
deceased employee-does not come within
definition of 'Family' under rule no.103 of
Act,1921-exclusion of a daughter on the basis of
her marital status is against the specific
provision of the Constitution-Regulation no. 103
against Article 14 and 15.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2015(4) UPLBEC 3388

## Text

908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Service
Selection
Board.
However,
subsequently a policy decision was made to
regularize the ad hoc appointees since their
ouster after a considerable period of service
would have entailed hardship. Thus, the
initial appointment was supposed to be a
stop gap arrangement, besides being not in
accordance with the rules, and the ad hoc
service cannot be counted for the purpose
of seniority."

24. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner is entitled for
seniority only from the date of his
substantive appointment on 25.01.1995,
which has been made after considering his
case by the Selection Committee in
accordance with law. Therefore this Court
is of the view that there is no illegality or
error in the impugned order challenged in
the present writ petition. The writ petition
has been filed on mis-conceived grounds
and it lacks merit.

25.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly,dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 908
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No.9842 of 2022

Seema Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Awadh Behari Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Intermediate Act, 1921Regulation
no.
103-Compassionate
Appointment-Petitioner's
claim
for
Compassionate Appointment rejected-on the
ground that she is divorced daughter of the
deceased employee-does not come within
definition of 'Family' under rule no.103 of
Act,1921-exclusion of a daughter on the basis of
her marital status is against the specific
provision of the Constitution-Regulation no. 103
against Article 14 and 15.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2015(4) UPLBEC 3388
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1
and 2.

2. In view of order being proposed to
be passed, notices to respondents no.3 and
4 stand dispensed with.

3. Petition has been filed assailing the
order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools concerned
whereby petitioner's representation for
compassionate
appointment
has
been
rejected on the ground that she is divorced
daughter of the deceased employee and
therefore does not come within the
definition of 'Family' as envisaged under
Regulation No.103 of the Regulations
framed under the Intermediate Education
Act, 1921.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the petitioner's father Late
Shiv Tahal Gupta was appointed Assistant
9 All. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
Teacher
in
the
Intermediate
College
concerned on 08.09.1980, which was duly
approved. While in service, he passed away
on 26.09.2016 leaving behind his widow
and the petitioner along with another
daughter and son. It is submitted that at the
time of passing away of her father, the
petitioner
was
married
but
was
subsequently divorced on 22.05.2019. It is
submitted that the petitioner filed the
application for compassionate appointment
on 07.01.2021.

5. It is further submitted that the
grounds
for
rejection
of
petitioner's
representation
is
clearly
against
the
Division Bench judgment of this Court
rendered in the case of Smt. Vimla
Srivastava versus State of U.P. and
another reported in 2015(4) UPLBEC
3388 wherein it has been held that a
daughter
cannot
be
excluded
from
consideration only on the ground of her
marital
status.
It
is
submitted
that
subsequently
vide
notification
dated
12.11.2021, the U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 which are pari
materia were also amended by the State
Government
to
include
daughters
(including adopted daughters) and widow
daughters-in-law in the definition of the
term 'family'. It is submitted that although
there is no such corresponding amendment
in Regulation 103 which is applicable in
the present case but the proposition of law
striking down the exclusion of married
daughters
would
have
the
same
applicability.

6. Learned State counsel refuting
submissions advance by learned counsel for
petitioner
as
submitted
that
under
Regulation
103
of
the
aforesaid
Regulations, there is no inclusion of a
divorced daughter under the definition of
term 'family'. It is submitted that the
judgment rendered in the case of Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra) as well as the
amendment incorporated in the dying in
harness Rules of 1974 are inapplicable in
the present facts and circumstances since
they apply only to Government Servants
and not to teachers of Private Intermediate
Colleges even though under grant-in-aid.

7. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material available on record, it is
apparent that Regulation 103 of the
Regulations aforesaid does not contemplate
inclusion of a divorced daughter within the
definition of the terms 'family'. It is
however relevant notice that judgment
rendered by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra)
had considered a similar rule under the
Rules of 1974. The aforesaid judgment in
paragraph 11 has considered the aspect and
has held that the test in matter of
compassionate appointment is a test of
dependency within defined relation-ship. It
has been held that the assumption that after
marriage a daughter cannot be said to be a
member of family of her father or that she
ceases to be dependent on her father
irrespective of social circumstances cannot
be countenanced. Excluding daughters
purely on the ground of marriage has been
held
to
constitute
an
impermissible
discrimination which would be violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. The relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment are as follows:-

"11. The stand which has been
taken by the state in the counter-affidavit
proceeds on a paternalistic notion of the
position of a woman in our society and
particularly of the position of a daughter
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after marriage. The affidavit postulates that
after marriage, a daughter becomes a
member of the family of her husband and
the responsibility for her maintenance
solely lies upon her husband. The second
basis which has been indicated in the
affidavit is that in Hindu Law, a married
daughter
cannot
be
considered
as
dependant of her father or a dependent of a
joint Hindu family. The assumption that
after marriage, a daughter cannot be said
to be a member of the family of her father
or that she ceases to be dependent on her
father irrespective of social circumstances
cannot be countenanced. Our society is
governed
by
constitutional
principles.
Marriage cannot be regarded as a
justifiable ground to define and exclude
from who constitutes a member of the
family when the state has adopted a social
welfare policy which is grounded on
dependency. The test
in matters of
compassionate appointment is a test of
dependency within defined relationships.
There are situations where a son of the
deceased Government servant may not be
in need of compassionate appointment
because
the
economic
and
financial
position of the family of the deceased are
not such as to require the grant of
compassionate
appointment
on
a
preferential basis. But the dependency or a
lack of dependency is a matter which is not
determined a priori on the basis of whether
or not the son is married. Similarly,
whether or not a daughter of a deceased
should
be
granted
compassionate
appointment has to be defined with
reference to whether, on a consideration of
all relevant facts and circumstances, she
was
dependent
on
the
deceased
Government servant. Excluding daughters
purely on the ground of marriage would
constitute an impermissible discrimination
and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution."

8. It is also relevant to notice that a
similar provision under the Rules of 1974
excluding a married daughter has been
amended by the State Government vide
notification dated 12.11.2021 to the effect
that daughters (including adopted daughter)
have now been included under the
definition of 'family' of a deceased
Government Servant. It is evident that the
inclusion of the term daughters which
includes adopted daughters has a very-wide
import and is in the nature of an inclusive
provision instead of an exclusive one. As
such
all
the
daughters
of deceased
Government Employee irrespective of her
marital status is now included under the
definition of term 'family' under the
aforesaid Rules of 1974.

9. In the present facts, although the
Rules of 1974 would not be applicable but
it is seen that Regulation 103 of the
Regulations
under
the
Intermediate
Education 1921 is pari materia to Rule 2(c)
of the Rules of 1974, which are as follows:-

"[103. इस सवसनयमावली में दी गई
सकसी बात के होते हुए भी िहााँ सकसी मान्यता प्राप्त
सहायता प्राप्त संथिा का अध्यापक या सशक्षणेत्तर
कमषचारी वगष के सकसी कमषचारी की िो सवसहत
प्रसक्रया के अनुसार सनयुक्त सकया गया हो, सेवा काल
में मृत्यु हो िाये, तो उसके कुर्टुम्ब के एक सदस्य को,
िो 18 वर्ष से कम आयु का ना हो, प्रसशसक्षत स्नातक
की श्रेणी में अध्यापक के पद रूप में या सकसी
सशक्षणेत्तर पद पर, यसद वह पद के सलये सवसहत
अपेसक्षत शैसक्षक प्रसशक्षण अहषताये, यसद कोई हो,
रखता हो और सनयुस्क्त के सलये अन्यिा उपयुक्त हो,
सनयुक्त सकया िा सकता है:

स्पष्टीकरण- इस सवसनयम के प्रयोिनािष
'कुर्टुम्ब का सदस्य' का तात्पयष मृत कमषचारी:
9 All. Seema Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
911
सवधया/सवधुर, पुत्र, असववासहत या सवधवा पुत्री से
होगा।

सर्टप्पणी- यह सवसनयम और सवसनयम 104
से 107 तक उन मृत कमषचाररयों के संबंध में लागू
होंगे सिनकी मृत्यु 1 िनवरी, 1981 को या उसके
पिात् हुई हो।]"

Rules of 1974:

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
brother,
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
word "family" shall also include the
grandsons
and
the
unmarried
granddaughters
of
the
deceased
Government servant dependent on him."

10. The concept for exclusion of a
married daughter as indicated in the
judgement rendered in the case of Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra) thus would have
complete applicability particularly since the
exclusion of a daughter of a deceased
Government Employee only on the basis of
her marital status has been held to be
against the specific provisions of the
Constitution of India. The Constitution of
India being the fountain head of all laws
within the State thus would have primacy
over
all
legislation
or
subordinate
legislation including Regulations framed
under the Intermediate Education Act,
1921. As such, the proposition of law
enunciated in the case of Smt. Vimla
Srivastava (supra) would have complete
applicability on the regulations framed
under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
also.

11. In view of aforesaid, the exclusion
of a daughter from the definition of 'family'
under Regulation 103 of the Regulations
framed under the Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 is clearly against the provisions
of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India as envisaged in Smt.Vimla Srivastava
(supra)

12. Considering the fact that the
impugned order has rejected petitioner's
representation only on the ground of
marital
status
of
petitioner
although
admitting her to be the daughter of a
deceased teacher, clearly the said impugned
order is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of
the Constitution of India as also against the
dictum of this Court in the case of Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra) is therefore
quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari at the admission stage itself.

13. A further writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued directing Respondent
No.2 i.e. District Inspector of Schools,
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gorakhpur
to
revisit
the
petitioner's
application irrespective of her marital
status. The order pertaining to same shall
be passed within a period of six weeks
from the date a copy of this order is
produced before the concerned authority.

14. Consequently, the writ petition
succeed and is allowed. Parties shall bear
their own costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 912
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2014

Satendra Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mangala Prasad Rai, Sri Indra Kumar
Chaturvedi, Sri S.K. Rao, Sri Saurabh
Chaturvedi, Sri O.P. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302- Arms Act, 1959 - Section
25 -Land dispute-accused fired upon the
deceased-defective, biased and prejudiced
investigation-violation of all norms-implanted
two persons as eye witness-planted cartridges
and country-made revolver-and showed it as
recovered on the pointing of accused-person
cannot be judge in his own cause being
informant/plaintiff of the Arms Act casewithout interrogating the probable personsnot taking blood stained clothes-submitted
chargesheet testimony of eye-witnesses -
place
of
occurrence-doubtful-no
dying
declaration- deceased had inimical relations
with several persons.
Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Padam Singh Vs St. of U. P. (2000) 1 SCC 621

2. Rama Vs St. of Raj., reported in (2002) 4 SCC
571

3. Majjal Vs St. of Har. (2013) 6 SCC 798

4. Varkey Joseph Vs St. of Kerala, 1993 Supp (3)
SCC 745

5. Munsi Prasad Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC
3031, 3033

6. Raj Kishor Vs St. of Bihar, 2003 (47) ACC
1068 SC

7. Bhagwan Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2002 (44) ACC
1112 SC

8. Satnam Singh Vs St. of Raj., (2000) 1 SCC
662.

9. Bhagwan Jagannath Marked Vs St. of Mah.,
(2016) 10 SCC 537

10. Shyamal Ghosh Vs St. of W. B.l, AIR 2012
SC 3539

11. Sone Lal Vs St. of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 760

12. Sucha Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2003) 7 SCC
639

13. Dilawar Singh Vs St. of Hary., (2015) 1 SCC 737

14. Dhari Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308

15. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318

16. St. of Bihar Vs Ram Padarath Singh, AIR
1998 SC 2606

17. Mehraj Singh Vs St. of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC
188

18. St. of M.P. Vs Dharkole, AIR 2005 SC 44

19. Paramjeet Singh Vs St. of Uttrakhand, AIR
2011 SC 200