# Shilpi Singh(Smt.) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-03
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 16548 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shilpi-singh-smt-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47158
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Dying-in Harness Rules,
1975 - Rule 2(c) - Appointment - The
married
daughter
comes
within
the
purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2(c) of
the Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 4)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8)
8 All. Shilpi Singh(Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
121
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner, the petitioner being a Class-IV
employee should not be harassed by
passing illegal order of suspension.

5. On being confronted asking the
reply on the aforesaid submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel
for the Nagar Palika Parishad could not
justify the impugned order of suspension.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the material available on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned
suspension
order,
if
passed
without
contemplation or pending departmental
enquiry,
is
absolutely
illegal
and
unwarranted. Keeping any employee under
suspension without contemplating any
departmental
enquiry
or
pending
departmental enquiry is not a suspension
order but the same is punishment order,
which is not permissible. The suspension
order is not a tool to harass the employee
but it is a method to adjudicate the issue
keeping an employee aside from his regular
duties till completion of the departmental
enquiry paying him subsistence allowance.
More than one year and nine months period
have passed since the petitioner is under
suspension, therefore, this is a prolonged
suspension order without contemplating or
pending departmental enquiry is not only
illegal, arbitrary but the same is harassment
of the employee who is serving on Class-IV
post.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

8. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned suspension
order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
District-Raebareli, which is contained as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. A writ
in the nature of mandamus is also issued
commanding the Executive Officer, Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
District-Raebareli
to
reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith
and he shall be paid his full salary and
other
consequential
service
benefits
treating him as duty if he was not under
suspension.

9. The compliance of the aforesaid
order shall be made within a period of one
month, failing which, the petitioner shall be
entitled for interest at the rate of 8% on
admissible dues of the petitioner.

10. No order as to cost.
----------
(2021)08ILR A120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN , J.

Service Single No. 16548 of 2021

Shilpi Singh(Smt.) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Ashwani Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Alok Saran

A. Service Law - Dying-in Harness Rules,
1975 - Rule 2(c) - Appointment - The
married
daughter
comes
within
the
purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2(c) of
the Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 4)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8)
8 All. Shilpi Singh(Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
121
List of Cases cited:-

1. Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
2016 (1) ADJ 21 (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Parul
Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for
opposite party no.1 and Sri Alok Saran,
learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 to
4.

2. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
7.1.2021 issued by the Personal Officer of
Madhyanchal
Vidyut
Vitran
Nigam
Limited, Lucknow by means of which
claim of the petitioner for providing any
appropriate/ suitable appointment under
Dying-in-Harness Rules has been rejected
on the sole ground that the petitioner being
a married daughter so she does not come
within the purview of 'family' as per Rule 2
of Dying-in-Harness Rules.

3. The sole question for consideration
before this Court is that as to whether
married daughter comes within the purview
of definition 'family' so defined under
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1975 particularly
in view of the dictum of the Full Bench of
this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava
Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in
2016 (1) ADJ 21.

4. The Full Bench after considering
the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules
and relevant case laws on the subject has
held that the married daughter comes
within the purview of 'family' in terms of
Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.
Relevant paragraphs no.25, 26, 27 & 28 are
being reproduced herein below:-

"25.
During
the
course
of
submissions, our attention was also drawn
to the judgment rendered by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Mudita vs.
State of U.P., 2015 (9) ADJ 16. The learned
Single Judge while proceeding to deal with
an identical issue of the right of a married
daughter to be considered under the Dyingin-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. 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.

26. 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.

27. We, accordingly, strike down
the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of
the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

28. 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
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be excluded from consideration only on the
ground of their marital status."

5. Therefore, in view of the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in re; Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra), I find that the
impugned order dated 7.1.2021 has not
been passed by the authority concerned
strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, I
hereby decide this writ petition finally at
the admission stage, with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, quashing/
setting aside the impugned order dated
7.1.2021 passed by the Personal Officer of
Madhyanchal
Vidyut
Vitran
Nigam
Limited, Lucknow, which is contained in
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition,
remanding back the same issue to the
competent authority concerned to consider
and decide the claim of the petitioner
strictly in accordance with law and also in
conformity with the decision of Full Bench
of this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(supra) and appropriate orders be passed
with expedition, preferably within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and decision
thereof shall be communicated to the
petitioner
forthwith.
While
passing
appropriate order, required opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and other affected
person, if any, may be provided by the
authority concerned.

6. It is expected that if there is no
legal impediment, the appropriate order
shall be passed on the compassionate
ground in view of the observations made
herein above.

7. In the aforesaid terms, the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)08ILR A122
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 17495 of 2021

Jubeda Bano ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Piyush Mishra, Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Ran Vijay Singh

A. Appointment - The petitioner has applied
for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the Primary School. She declared
her percentage as per clause 13 of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and
such declaration can be verified from her
educational documents itself. Therefore, her
candidature should not be rejected on the
basis of para-2(1) of the Government Order
dated 05.03.2021 rather, her candidature
should be considered in the light of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020. (Para
12)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Piyush Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.5.

2. On the first date of admission, this
Court
has
passed
the
order
dated
12.08.2021 as under:-