# Soniya v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 97
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52933 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soniya-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43243
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compassionate
Appointment-claim
by
married daughter of deceased employeeon allegations since 2002 she along with
her husband residing with deceased
employee-who had lost his job due to
fire-without any supporting documentshusband
being
hale
and
heartypetitioner can not be treated dependent
of her deceased-certainly dependents
married daughter can not be excludedbut every pleadings must be supported
by
documents-in
absence
thereofappointment can not be claimed as a
matter of right.
Held: Para-18 & 19

## Text

1 All] Soniya Vs. State of & Ors.
97
process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The application
is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. The application is dismissed,
accordingly.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52933 of 2014
Soniya
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Shukla, Sri Prashant Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compassionate
Appointment-claim
by
married daughter of deceased employeeon allegations since 2002 she along with
her husband residing with deceased
employee-who had lost his job due to
fire-without any supporting documentshusband
being
hale
and
heartypetitioner can not be treated dependent
of her deceased-certainly dependents
married daughter can not be excludedbut every pleadings must be supported
by
documents-in
absence
thereofappointment can not be claimed as a
matter of right.
Held: Para-18 & 19
18. Thus, from the careful reading of
these reports, it is found that the
direction was given therein in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of those
cases and the Court was of the opinion
that the dependent daughters cannot be
excluded merely because of their marital
status.
19. As has been discussed above, one
dependent
family
member
of
the
deceased
employee
is
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner has failed to establish that she
was
dependent
upon
the
deceased
employee, as admittedly her husband is
alive and he is a hail and hearty person,
it cannot be accepted that the petitioner
was fully dependent upon the deceased
employee at the time of his death.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC 1868; LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-68;
ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 3416; 2005 (104) FLR
271.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.
2. Short controversy raised in the
present writ petition is as to whether the
petitioner being a married daughter of the
deceased employee has a right for
consideration
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground. The petitioner is
only daughter of her parents and her case
is that she is unemployed and was fully
dependent upon her father at the time of
his death. Her mother i.e. wife of the
deceased employee moved an application
on 22.2.2012 before the Principal/Chief
Superintendent, S.N. Medical College and
Hospital, Agra for providing employment
to her daughter i.e. petitioner. Reminders
were sent by the petitioner and her mother
but no decision has been taken and hence
this writ petition.
3. In the supplementary affidavit
filed on 17.10.2014, the petitioner sought
to submit that she alongwith her husband
98
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhupendra Sharma is residing at her
parental residence and is looking after
wife of the deceased(mother of the
petitioner) and the entire family.
4. It is also indicated therein that the
petitioner's husband was earlier working
in a shoe factory at Agra but on account
of fire in the factory in the year 2002, he
lost his job and since thereafter her entire
family including her husband were fully
dependent upon the deceased employee.
5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner being
married daughter though is not included
in the definition of "Family" under Dyingin-Harness
Rules,
is
entitled
for
consideration
for
compassionate
appointment as she was fully dependent
upon her father. Merely because the
petitioner is a married daughter, she
cannot be refused appointment as it would
be violative of Article 15 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
6.
For awarding compassionate
appointment, the 'dependency' should be the
yardstick and not the marriage of family
members of the deceased. Supreme Court
has recognized right to employment in case
of a married woman as early as in the year
1979 in the case of C.B. Muthamma vs.
Union of India and others AIR 1979 SC
1868. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of Bombay High Court in
Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. The State of
Maharashtra LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-68 and
Karnataka High Court in R. Jayamma vs.
Karnataka Electricity Board and another
ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 3416 and
Manjula vs. State of Karnataka, by its
Secretary, Department of Co-operation and
Another 2005(104) FLR 271.
7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, submits that the petitioner has
no right for consideration for appointment
on compassionate ground as she is not
eligible for such appointment being not a
dependent family member of the deceased
employee. A married daughter is not
included in the expression "Family" of the
deceased employee and hence there is no
merit in the writ petition and the same
deserves to be dismissed.
8. The dependent petitioner is the
sole heir of the deceased employee. There
are two family members of the deceased
employee namely, the petitioner and her
mother. Indisputably, the petitioner was
married prior to death of her father in the
year 2011. It is also apparent from the facts
indicated in the writ petition that she was
living with her husband till the year 2000
who was working in a shoe factory. The
contention is that after the shoe factory was
gutted in fire and closed, the entire family of
the petitioner namely her husband and two
children started living with the deceased
employee and were financially dependent
upon him. Thus, an effort has been made to
carve out an exception to Rule 5 of the 1974
Rules to submit that the petitioner was a
dependent
daughter
of
the
deceased
employee and as she was financially
dependent upon her father at the time of his
death, she has a claim for consideration for
compassionate appointment.
9. It is well settled that the
compassionate appointment is granted to
a dependent family member of the
deceased employee. Even a son of the
deceased employee is not eligible for
compassionate appointment, if he is not
dependent upon the employee at the time
of his death. The offer of compassionate
appointment is to be given to one of the
1 All] Soniya Vs. State of & Ors.
99
dependent
family
members
of
the
deceased employee so as to help the
family mitigate the financial crisis faced
by it. It is not a source of employment and
is in the nature of an exception to the
General Rule that everyone is to come in
a public employment solely on merits.
10. Thus, the "dependency" would
be
the
first
eligibility
criteria
for
consideration of claim of a family
member of the deceased employee for
compassionate appointment. In case, this
test is passed, only then the application
for compassionate appointment is to be
considered on other aspects.
11. So far as the present case is
concerned, it appears that the petitioner
has not disclosed the correct facts.
Though it is stated in the supplementary
affidavit that the petitioner and her family
was living and dependent upon the
deceased, however, there is no document
to support the said submission. Moreover,
no such statement has been made by the
mother of the petitioner in the year 2012
when she has moved an application to
consider the claim of the petitioner. A
perusal of the application dated 22.2.2012
moved by the petitioner's mother indicates
that only submission therein was that the
petitioner
was
unemployed.
The
submission of the petitioner that her
husband is unemployed and was fully
dependent upon her father from the year
2002 till his death is not worthy of
acceptance for absence of material on
record. Vague assertions in the affidavit
are not sufficient to prove the dependency
of
the
petitioner
on the
deceased
employee.
12.
So far as another aspect of the
matter i.e. exclusion of a married daughter
in the expression "Family" is concerned, it
appears that exclusion of a married daughter
from the expression "Family" is based on
logic that soon after the marriage, daughters
leave the house of their parents and are
financially dependent upon their husbands.
Though it cannot be said that they cannot be
treated as part of the family yet it is true that
they are not financially dependent upon
their parents, after marriage.
13.
The cases relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner to submit
that the petitioner was dependent upon her
father at the time of his death and hence the
claim for consideration of compassionate
appointment, are distinguishable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
14.

In
Ranjana
Murlidhar
Anerao(supra), the question was as to
whether the exclusion of the married
daughter from the expression "Family" for
being entitled to be considered for grant
of retail kerosene licence was legal and
valid. It was held that exclusion of
married daughter from the expression
"Family" is not only violative of Article
15 of the Constitution of India but the
same also infringes the right guaranteed
by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India. So far as grant of licence for
distribution of Kerosene oil is concerned,
the legal heirs of the deceased retail
licence holder are entitled to seek transfer
of licence in their names after the death of
the licensee. It was found that marriage of
a daughter who is otherwise a legal
representative of a licence holder cannot
be held to her disadvantage in the matter
of seeking transfer of licence in her name
on the death of the licence holder.
15.
Merely because a daughter is
looking after her parents is not a criteria for
100
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grant of compassionate appointment. The
object with which a married daughter has
been
excluded
from
the
expression
"Family" is based on an intelligible
differentia and the dependency should be a
yardstick
for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment
and
is
commensurate with the sole object of grant
of compassionate appointment. It is in these
circumstances, the married daughter has not
been included in the expression "Family"
under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
16.
However for transfer of retail
licence, the criteria is "inheritance" whereas
in the matter of grant of compassionate
appointment, it is "dependency" and hence
ratio of judgment of Bombay High
Court(supra) applies in the facts and
circumstances of that particular case and is
not applicable in the facts of the present case.
17. So far as the judgments in R.
Jayamma(supra) and Manjula (supra) are
concerned, it is found that in both the
cases, the Karnataka High Court found
that the married daughter was financially
dependent upon her parents for the reason
that in R. Jayamma(supra) the husband of
the petitioner (who was a married
daughter) has become mentally deranged.
In Manjula(supra) the petitioner has
become widow after filing of the petition.
In paragraph 10 of the judgment in
Manjula(supra) it was observed that no
married daughter can be denied of an
entry into the service on compassionate
employment just because she is married.
There may be cases whether the married
woman may be living with her parents
notwithstanding her marriage for various
reasons and there may be cases where
married women would be dependent on
their parents on account of their individual
circumstances. Thus, the Court in those
cases, may read down the rule of
dependency in the facts and circumstances
of the case and issue a direction to provide
employment
to
dependent
married
daughters subject to satisfaction of their
dependency in the given circumstances.
18. Thus, from the careful reading of
these reports, it is found that the direction
was given therein in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases and the
Court was of the opinion that the
dependent daughters cannot be excluded
merely because of their marital status.
19. As has been discussed above,
one dependent family member of the
deceased
employee
is
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner has failed to establish that she
was
dependent
upon
the
deceased
employee, as admittedly her husband is
alive and he is a hail and hearty person, it
cannot be accepted that the petitioner was
fully dependent upon the deceased
employee at the time of his death.
20. In view of above discussion, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief in
the present writ petition. The writ petition
is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53920 of 2014
Bhagwat Prasad
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel
for
the
Petitioner: