# Smt. Geeta Srivastava v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 729
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-28
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-others-42261
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226cancellation
of
compassionate
appointment-denied
on
ground
daughter-in-law
is
not
within
the
definition
of
family-held-in
view
of
amendment in Rule enforceable w.e.f
22.12.2011-daughter-in-law included all
in
family
member-cancellation
of
appointment-illegal-direction
to
reinstate and pay arrear of salary within
two month-issued.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above legal proposition as
well as the amendment in the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 to include the
widowed
daughter-in-law
in
the
definition of the term 'family', this writ
petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 15.1.1998 passed by the
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari,
Fatehpur
is
quashed. The petitioner shall be treated
to be in service with all consequential
benefits. The petitioner will also be
entitled to the arrears of salary which
shall be paid to her within two months
from the date a certified copy of this
order is received by the respondent no.
4-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur.
Case law discussed:
2010 (2) AWC 1606; 2011 (1) UPLBEC 290

## Text

2 All] Smt. Geeta Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
729

22. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed with a direction to respondents to
pay the petitioner his post retiral dues
treating him to retire from the post of
Principal, Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College,
Fatehpur Chaurasi, Unnao w.e.f. 30.06.2011
in accordance with law expeditiously
preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of receiving certified copy of
this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 5998 of 1998

Smt. Geeta Srivastava
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.K. Kesarwani
Sri S.K. Kulshreshtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Tripathi,
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226cancellation
of
compassionate
appointment-denied
on
ground
daughter-in-law
is
not
within
the
definition
of
family-held-in
view
of
amendment in Rule enforceable w.e.f
22.12.2011-daughter-in-law included all
in
family
member-cancellation
of
appointment-illegal-direction
to
reinstate and pay arrear of salary within
two month-issued.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above legal proposition as
well as the amendment in the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 to include the
widowed
daughter-in-law
in
the
definition of the term 'family', this writ
petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 15.1.1998 passed by the
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari,
Fatehpur
is
quashed. The petitioner shall be treated
to be in service with all consequential
benefits. The petitioner will also be
entitled to the arrears of salary which
shall be paid to her within two months
from the date a certified copy of this
order is received by the respondent no.
4-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur.
Case law discussed:
2010 (2) AWC 1606; 2011 (1) UPLBEC 290

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. In this writ petition the petitioner
is seeking quashing of the order dated
15.1.1998 passed by District Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds on the ground that
the benefit of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servant
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 does not
extend to widowed daughter-in-law and
for a further direction to the respondents
not to interfere in the functioning of the
petitioner as an Assistant Teacher and to
pay the petitioner her regular monthly
salary of the said post.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner -Smt. Geeta Srivastava was
married to one Anuj Kumar Srivastava
son of Late Raj Narain Srivastava. The
said Raj Narain Srivastava was employed
as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic
School run by the Board of Basic
Education, U.P. Shri Raj Narain expired
while in service. In the meantime Anuj
Kumar
Srivastava,
husband
of
the
petitioner has also expired leaving behind
his widow, the present petitioner. The
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner,
therefore,
submitted
an
application for grant of compassionate
appointment as a widowed daughter-inlaw of the deceased employee. Her
application was considered and she was
given compassionate appointment as an
untrained
assistant
teacher
on
a
consolidated salary of Rs.850/- per month
and she joined in Prathamik Pathshala,
Sarai Sayeed Khan, Development Block,
Teliyani, Fatehpur. However, when the
salary was not being paid to her she filed
a writ petition no. 881 of 1998 seeking a
direction to the respondents to pay her
salary. The said writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to pay regular salary to the
petitioner from month to month. She was
also recommended for under going
training at the District Institute of
Education and Training, Fatehpur. Her
case is that in-spite of the order of this
Court she has not been paid her salary. By
the impugned order dated 15.1.1998 her
appointment has been cancelled on the
ground that the benefit of compassionate
appointment is not available to a widowed
daughter-in-law.

3. I have heard Shri Adarsh
Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The facts arising in this case are
not disputed between the parties. The only
question now remains is as to whether the
appointment of the petitioner could have
been cancelled by the impugned order on
the
ground
that
the
benefit
of
compassionate appointment would not be
available to a widowed daughter-in-law
under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974?

5. This controversy had earlier
come up for consideration before a
learned Singh Judge of this Court and the
learned Single Judge interpreting the term
'family' in the case reported in 2010 (2)
AWC 1606 Smt. Amrita Mishra Vs.State
of U.P. and others relying upon a
Division Bench decision in the case of
Zila Panchayat Kaushambi and others V.
Lalti Devi and another reported in 2008
(2) ADJ 428 has held as under:

"6. Having considered the Rule in
question and having perused the Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and others
V. Lalti Devi and another, 2008 (2) aDJ
428: 2008(1)AWC 1035 (DB), it is not
necessary call for any counter-affidavit
on behalf of the State as the said decision
squarely covers the case of the petitioner.
It has been held by this Court that the
word "family" includes the relations as
defined therein. According to the Division
Bench judgment the said definition is
inclusive and to the extent of daughter-inlaw is not exhaustive. It has been held
that a daughter-in-law who is a widow, is
also
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Sanyogita Rai
Vs. state of U.P. and others, 2006 (5) ADJ
501. The said decision has also been
noticed in the judgment of Division Bench
referred to hereinabove.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order
for the reasons aforesaid is unsustainable.
The order dated 5.9.2009, insofar as it
relates to the petitioner, is hereby
quashed and the matter is remitted back
to the District Basic Education Officer to
2 All] Smt. Geeta Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
731
reconsider the claim of the petitioner in
the light of the observations made herein
above and pass an appropriate order
within a period of six weeks from the date
of presentation of a certified copy of this
order before him.

The writ petition is allowed. No
costs."

6. Subsequently, this controversy
has also been settled by a Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case reported
in 2011 (1) UPLBEC 290 (U.P. Power
Corporation Allahabad Vs. Smt. Urmila
Devi wherein the Full Bench interpreting
the term 'family' occurring in the U.P.
Electricity
Board
Appointment
of
Dependants of Employees of Board
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1975 has held
as under:

"8. We must, however, note one
feature of the definition of the word
"family" as generally contained in most
Rules. The definition of "family" includes
wife or husband; sons; unmarried and
widowed daughters; and if the deceased
was an unmarried Government servant,
the
brother,
unmarried
sister
and
widowed
mother
dependant
on
the
deceased Government servant. It is,
therefore, clear that a widowed daughter
in the house of her parents is entitled for
consideration
on
compassionate
appointment.
However,
a
widowed
daughter-in-law in the house where she is
married, is not entitled for compassionate
appointment as she is not included in the
definition of "family". It is not possible to
understand how a widowed daughter in
her father's house has a better right to
claim appointment on compassionate
basis than a widowed daughter-in-law in
her fahter-in-law's house. The very nature
of compassionate appointment is the
financial need or necessity of the family.
The daughter-in-law on the death of her
husband does not cease to be a part of the
family. The concept that such daughterin-law must go back and stay with her
parents is abhorrent to our civilized
society.
Such
daughter-in-law
must,
therefore,
have
also
right
to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment as she is part of the family
where she is married and if staying with
her husband's family. In this context, in
our opinion, arbitrariness, as presently
existing, can be avoided by including the
daughter-in-law in the definition of
'family'. Otherwise, the definition to that
extent, prima facie, would be irrational
and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to
consider this aspect and take appropriate
steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law
like a widowed daughter, is also entitled
for
consideration
by
way
of
compassionate
appointment,
if
other
criteria is satisfied.

7. The State Government has also
now amended the U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servant
(Dying in Harness ) Rules, 1974 and has
included a widowed daughter-in-law in
the category of 'family'. The said
amendment has also been published in the
official gazette dated 22.12.2011. The
term 'family' has been defined to include
the following members:

"(C) "Family" shall include the
following relations of the deceased
Government servant:-

(i) wife or husband;

(ii) sons/adopted sons;
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

(iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried
adopted daughters, widowed daughters
and widowed daughter-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 world "family"
shall also include the grandsons and the
unmarried granddaughters of the deceased
Government servant dependent on him."

8. In view of the above legal
proposition as well as the amendment in the
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 to include the
widowed daughter-in-law in the definition
of the term 'family', this writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated
15.1.1998 passed by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari,
Fatehpur
is
quashed.
The
petitioner shall be treated to be in service
with
all
consequential
benefits.
The
petitioner will also be entitled to the arrears
of salary which shall be paid to her within
two months from the date a certified copy
of this order is received by the respondent
no. 4-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur.

9. There shall be no order as to cost.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6825 of 2004

Ashok Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Thru. Secy. Min. of
Defence & Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.P.Srivastava
Sri Anubhav Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.S.C.
Sri Rakesh Sinha
Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi
Sri K.C. Sinha

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Appointment/Regularization-petitioner
worked on post of oil engine driver-for
264 days-also appeared in Trade Testclaim of regularization based on circular
dated
27.11.1992-providing
regularization of those casual worker
who were engaged prior to 07.06.1988
and are in services on dated 07.04.1991admittedly disengaged from 16.11.1984not coming within preview of one time
regularization scheme-not entitled for
any relief.

Held: Para 21 and 23

It is apparent from the above OM that
consideration of casual workers for
regularization was only as a one time
measure,
in
consultation
with
the
Director
General
Employment
and
Training, Ministry of Labour. Since the
petitioner was not in service on 8th April,
1991, when this letter was issued he had
no
right
of
regularization.