# Smt. Neha Saxena v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-24
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 2881 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neha-saxena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45807
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants
Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974:
Section 2(c) - Married daughter is
entitled
to
be
considered
for
compassionate appointment. Exclusion
of married daughter from the ambit of the
expression 'family' in Rule 2(c) is illegal
and unconstitutional being violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 8, 10)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

6 All. Smt. Neha Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 841

9. The petitioner shall not relieved
from the place of his present posting, if he
has already not been relieved till the
decision taken by the respondent no.6 on
the representation filed by the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid observation,
the writ petition is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)06ILR A841
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

WRIT A No. 2881 of 2020

Smt. Neha Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servants
Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974:
Section 2(c) - Married daughter is
entitled
to
be
considered
for
compassionate appointment. Exclusion
of married daughter from the ambit of the
expression 'family' in Rule 2(c) is illegal
and unconstitutional being violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 8, 10)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Neha Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ,
Special Appeal (D) No. 863 of 2015 (Para 8,
10)
2. The State of U.P. & anr. Vs Neha
Srivastava, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
22646 of 2016 (Para 8, 10)

Petition
challenges
order
dated
31.01.2020, passed by Superintending
Engineer, Budaun/Pilibhit Zone, P.W.D.
Bareilly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
with the following prayers;

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
31.01.2020 (Annexure No.4) passed by
respondent No.4 to this writ petition.

(ii to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint
the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness
Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint
the petitioner under Dying-in- Harness
Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iv) Award costs of the petition
to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the father of the petitioner
late Krishna Kumar Saxena was a regular
employee
posted
as
Administrative
Officer in the office of P.W.D. and while
being in service he died on 15.11.2019
leaving behind the petitioner and her
mother Smt. Mamta Saxena, the father of
the petitioner was only earning member
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the family. The mother of the petitioner
is a housewife and she is an old lady.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner was
married in the year 2009 but being the
only heir of late Krishna Kumar Saxena
and Smt. Mamta Saxena has been
residing with her mother Smt. Mamta
Saxena to look after her being an old lady
who was suffering from several diseases
and after the death of the father, she is the
only person to look after her mother.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the mother of the
petitioner, thereafter, moved an application
on 27.01.2020 before the respondents to
give appointment to the petitioner, under
the Dying-in-Harness Rules on suitable
post. The petitioner is fully qualified to be
appointed on Group-C post as she has
completed her graduation in the year 2006
in Commerce streame and she is also
entitled to get the benefits of Government
Orders issued from time to time and the
benefits under the Dying in Harness Rules,
1974.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the respondent No.4
vide order dated 31.01.2020 rejected the
application of the petitioner for appointment
on compassionate ground only on the
ground that the petitioner being a married
daughter is not covered under the definition
of family under Rule 2(c) of the U.P.
Recruitment of Dependent of Government
Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974,
therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed
under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as
amended in 2011.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the ground taken by the
respondent
No.4 while
rejecting
the
application of the petitioner is arbitrary and
without application of mind, the petitioner
is covered under the definition of family as
contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the U.P.
Recruitment of Dependent of Government
Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and
the impugned order was passed totally in
mechanical manner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has
countered the arguments advanced by
the petitioner and submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled for being
appointed on compassionate ground as
the petitioner is not covered under the
definition of family under Rule 2(c) of
the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of
Government Servant Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974.

8. In reply to the arguments raised
by
the
learned
Standing
Counsel,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submits that the Division Bench of this
Court has dealt with this controversy
and
entitled
married
daughter
for
compassionate appointment this view is
taken by the Court in Special Appeal
(D) No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava
Vs. State of U.P. and another) and was
pleased to hold that exclusion of
married daughters from the ambit of the
expression family in Rule 2(c) of the
U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of
Government Servant Dying-in-Harness
Rules,
1974
is
illegal
and
unconstitutional.
It
was
further
submitted
that
aggrieved
by
the
judgment passed in Special Appeal (D)
No.863 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015, the
State of U.P. has filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) Nos.22646 of 2016 (The
State of U.P. and another Vs. Neha
Srivastava), which was dismissed by the
6 All. Mudresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 843
Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and
order dated 23.07.2019.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for the State and perused the record. It is
not disputed that the petitioner is the
married daughter of late Krishna Kumar
Saxena,
working
on
the
post
of
Administrative Officer in the office of
P.W.D. and after the death of her father,
the petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment and she is living with her
widow mother to look after her and there
is no source of her livlihood and no other
family members made any objection on
petitioner's
appointment
on
compassionate ground in place of late
father.

10. It is also not out of place to mention
here that the only objection taken by the
respondents is that the petitioner being
married daughter is not covered under the
definition of family under Rule 2(c) of the
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependent
of
Government
Servant
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974, as such petitioner is not entitled
for reliefs sought in the writ petition. This
Court is not satisfied with the objection raised
by the respondents, whereas this controversy
has already been attained finality in Special
Appeal (D) No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava
Vs. State of U.P. and another) and this Court
has held that exclusion of married daughters
from the ambit of the expression family in
Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of
Dependent of Government Servant Dying-inHarness
Rules,
1974
is
illegal
and
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution of India and further
held that the married daughter is entitled to be
considered for compassionate appointment. It
is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble
Apex Court also dismissed the Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No.22646 of 2016 vide
judgment and order dated 23.07.2019
confirming the judgment passed in Special
Appeal (D) No.863 of 2015 dated 23.12.2015
(Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
another).

11. In view of the aforesaid discussions
and considering the judgement passed by this
Court in Special Appeal (D) No.863 of 2015
dated 23.12.2015 (Neha Srivastava Vs. State
of U.P. and another) and the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave
to Appeal ( C) No.22646 of 2016, the present
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 31.01.2020 is quashed. The
Superintending Engineer, Budaun/ Pilibhit
Zone, P.W.D. Bareilly, respondent No.4 is
directed to consider and decide the claim of
the petitioner in the light of the observations
made above and the judgment passed by this
Court expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
before him and the respondent No.4 may also
communicate the decision to the petitioner
forthwith.

12. No order as to cost.
----------

(2020)06ILR A843
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

WRIT A No. 3751 of 2020

Mudresh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: