# Smt. Sharma Devi & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 663
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 649 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sharma-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48226
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Allotment of fair price shop
on compassionate ground - Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 - Section 47-A - The very nature of
compassionate appointment is the financial
need or necessity of the family. The daughterin-law on the death of her husband does
not cease to be a part of the family. The
concept that such daughter-in-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.
(Para 6)

The daughter in law upon death of her
husband does not cease to be part of
family. Applying the same logic in the
case of daughter in law which has not
been widowed, it can be seen that the
later would have a better claim than a
widowed daughter in law since she
continues to be a part of family as much
as a widowed daughter in law. As such
no
distinction
can
be
carved
out
between a daughter in law whose
husband
is
alive
and
a
widowed
daughter in law. (Para 7)

It is apparent that petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment of the fair price
shop in question has been rejected only on
the ground that she does not come within the
definition of 'family' as per paragraph IV(X) of
the GO dated 5th August, 2019 since
petitioner is the daughter in law of the earlier
fair price shop agreement holder. This aspect
of the matter having already been covered by
the judgments of this Court, the ground for
rejection
of
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate
appointment
is
clearly
unsustainable. (Para 2, 8)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

3 All. Smt. Sharma Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
came in existence after the writ petition
was decided by this Court.

40. Practically, the arguments have to
be reheard. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, it may not be a case where the
error is apparent on record as review of the
order is sought on grounds, which were not
existing at the time of passing of order by
this Court.

41. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any case is made out for
entertaining
the
present
Review
Applications. The Review Applications
along with all accompanying applications
are, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A663
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 649 of 2022

Smt. Sharma Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shiv Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Allotment of fair price shop
on compassionate ground - Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 - Section 47-A - The very nature of
compassionate appointment is the financial
need or necessity of the family. The daughterin-law on the death of her husband does
not cease to be a part of the family. The
concept that such daughter-in-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.
(Para 6)

The daughter in law upon death of her
husband does not cease to be part of
family. Applying the same logic in the
case of daughter in law which has not
been widowed, it can be seen that the
later would have a better claim than a
widowed daughter in law since she
continues to be a part of family as much
as a widowed daughter in law. As such
no
distinction
can
be
carved
out
between a daughter in law whose
husband
is
alive
and
a
widowed
daughter in law. (Para 7)

It is apparent that petitioner's application for
compassionate appointment of the fair price
shop in question has been rejected only on
the ground that she does not come within the
definition of 'family' as per paragraph IV(X) of
the GO dated 5th August, 2019 since
petitioner is the daughter in law of the earlier
fair price shop agreement holder. This aspect
of the matter having already been covered by
the judgments of this Court, the ground for
rejection
of
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate
appointment
is
clearly
unsustainable. (Para 2, 8)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pushpa Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C No.
18519 of 2021, Order dated 22.11.2021 (Para 3)

2. U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Vs Smt. Urmila Devi,
2011(3) ADJ 432 (Para 3)

Present petition challenges orders dated
12.01.2022
whereby
petitioner's
application for allotment of fair price shop
on
compassionate
ground
has
been
rejected.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed assailing
order dated 12th January, 2022 whereby
petitioner's application for allotment of fair
price shop on compassionate ground has
been rejected on the ground that she does
not come within definition of 'family' as
drescribed in paragraph IV(10) of the
Government Order dated 5th August, 2019
since petitioner is the daughter in law of the
earlier fair price shop agreement holder.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that initially petitioner's father in
law namely late Shyam Lal was the fair
price shop agreement holder of the fair
price shop in question, who passed away on
27th November, 2021 and petitioner being
his daughter in law filed the application for
compassionate appointment. It is submitted
that the petitioner otherwise is fully eligible
to be appointed a fair price shop dealer of
the shop in question. It has been further
submitted that the aspect that daughter in
law does not come within the preview of
'family' has already been dealt with by this
Court in the judgment and order dated 22nd
November, 2021 passed in Writ-C No.
18519 of 2021, Pushpa Devi versus State of
U.P. and others in which the petition for
compassionate appointment by daughter in
law was allowed placing reliance on the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited
versus Smt. Urmila Devi reported in
2011(3) ADJ 432. As such it is submitted
that the impugned order is clearly against
the dictum of this Court.

4. Learned State Counsel refuting
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner submits that petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
could have been decided only in terms of
the government order applicable in the
matter and since a daughter in law has not
been defined as a part of family in
paragraph IV(10) of the government order
dated
5th
August,
2019
petitioner's
application was rightly rejected.

5. Upon consideration of submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material on record, it is apparent
that petitioner's case is fully covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Pushpa Devi (surpa) and the Full Bench
decision in the case of U.P. Power
Corporation Limited (supra).

6. While it is correct that a daughter
in law is not covered within the definition
of 'family' in the government order dated
5th August, 2019 but such an exclusion has
already been held the ultra vires the
constitution of India in the judgment
rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the
case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited
(supra). Relevant portion of the judgment is
as follows:-

"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
3 All. Smt. Sharma Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
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 father-in-law's
house. The very nature of compassionate
appointment is the financial need or
necessity of the family. The daughter-inlaw on the death of her husband does not
cease to be a part of the family. The
concept that such daughter-in-law must go
back and stay with her parents is abhorrent
to our civilized society. Such daughter-inlaw 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.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel
to forward a copy of this order to the
Secretary of the concerned Department in
the State Government for appropriate
consideration."

7. Although the aforesaid Full Bench
judgment pertains to right of a widowed
daughter in law and in the present case the
petitioner is not a widowed daughter in law
but in the considered opinion of this Court,
the same would not have any difference
whatsoever and the rigor of the Full Bench
would be applicable in the present case as
well. The reason for the said opinion of this
Court is self evident from the reasoning
indicated in the Full Bench decision itself
in which it has been stated that the daughter
in law upon death of her husband does not
cease to be part of family. Applying the
same logic in the case of daughter in law
which has not been widowed, it can be seen
that the later would have a better claim than
a widowed daughter in law since she
continues to be a part of family as much as
a widowed daughter in law. As such no
distinction can be carved out between a
daughter in law whose husband is alive and
a widowed daughter in law.

8. Upon applicability of aforesaid
judgment, it is apparent that petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
of the fair price shop in question has been
rejected only on the ground that she does
not come come within the definition of
'family' as per paragraph IV(X) of the
government order dated 5th August, 2019
this aspect of the matter having already
been covered by the judgments of this
Court indicated herein above, the ground
for rejection of petitioner's application for
compassionate
appointment
is
clearly
unsustainable.

9. In view of aforesaid, the impugned
order dated 12th January, 2022 is quashed
by issuance a writ in the nature of
Certiorari at the admission stage itself. The
opposite party No.4 i.e. Up Ziladhikari,
Tehsil
Bhinga,
District
Shrawasti
is
directed to reconsider the petitioner's
application for appointment as fair price
shop
dealer
on
compassionate
basis
expeditiously, within the period of six
weeks from the date a copy of this order is
produced before him. The application shall
be considered by reasoned and speaking
order taking into account the judgments
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by this Court as indicated herein
above.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the
petition succeeds and is allowed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 1755 of 2022

Bank Of Baroda, Branch, Gorakhpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.M., Maharajganj & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 'SARFAESI Act'
- Section 14 - Expeditious disposal of S. 14
applications - D.M. to pass suitable orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the
secured assets within a period of thirty
days from the date of application - if no
order is passed within the said period of
thirty days for reasons beyond his control,
D.M. may, after recording reasons in
writing, pass the order within such further
period but not exceeding in aggregate
sixty days - In Writ-C No.7126 of 2021
High Court issued a general direction on
24.08.2021 to all the District Magistrates
to keep a record/register of all the
pending applications filed u/s 14 of the
Act - said register to be duly inspected by
the District Magistrate from time to time
and also countersigned by him - a
quarterly report of all institution of
applications filed u/s 14 of the Act
together with the length of pendency of
each application be sent to the Registrar
General of the High Court in the tabular
form who shall place the same before the
appropriate Committee dealing with the
functioning
of
the
Debt
Recovery
Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunals - G.O. dated 13.09.2021 &
11.02.2022
issued
directing
strict
compliance of the order dated 24.08.2021
passed in Writ-C No.7126

Disposed of. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. When the case was listed on
10.02.2022, the following order was passed
:-

"Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State.

This writ petition has been filed
by the bank praying for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondent no.1/District
Magistrate, Maharajganj to decide the
application dated 15.04.2017 bearing case
no.289 of 2017 and computerised case no
D 201705470289 titled as "Manager Dena