# State of U.P. & Anr v. Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1766 of 2023
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-pramod-kumar-tiwari-anr-49914
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Promotion - Censure
entry - In a situation where a censure is
being
awarded
to
an
employee
on
10.04.2017 in respect of period of 200809 and in the annual entry for the year
2017-18 he is being rated as a very good
official/officer,
denying
the
claim
of
promotion on the ground of the censure
entry dated 10.04.2017 pertaining to the
period 2008-09 is, thus, not only illegal
being
contrary
to
what
has
been
prescribed in Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993 but is also arbitrary. (Para 20)

As per Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993, the St. Government has provided
that in case any censure entry is available
during the period for which the relevant service
record of an employee is under consideration
and no other adverse entry or punishment is
awarded to such an employee within five years
from the date in respect of which the censure
entry is available, such censure entry shall not
be considered for the purposes of evaluating
satisfactory service of the employee concerned,
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
121
that is to say such censure entry is to be
ignored. (Para 11, 12)

Para 5(4) of the GO dated 25.03.1994
provides that any punishment order issued will
be effective with immediate effect even if it is
issued in respect of some irregularity committed
at a prior point in time. It further provides that
such punishment order shall be kept in the
character roll of the employee concerned in the
year in which it is awarded. Para 6 of GO dated
25.03.1994 St.s that Para 5 of GO dated
25.03.1994 shall be read in conjunction
with
guidelines
given
in
GO
dated
30.06.1993. (Para 14)

From perusal of provision of Para 2 of the
GO dated 06.04.1999, it is clear that it has
been provided therein that in case after enquiry
any censure entry is awarded against an
employee, such censure entry shall be kept in
the character roll of the employee concerned in
the year in which censure entry is awarded,
however, while doing so it shall also be
mentioned, while recording the censure entry in
the year in which it is awarded, that censure
entry related to which year or which post and
what has been the nature of the mistake which
resulted in award of censure entry so that the
actual and natural consequence and effect such
censure entry can be taken into account while
evaluating an employee. Thus, GO dated
06.04.1999, appears to be in complete
sync with provisions contained in Para
2(स) of the GO dated 30.06.1993 which
does not get diluted by the provisions
contained in Para 5(4) of the GO dated
25.03.1993 (which is fortified by the
subsequent GO dated 06.04.1999). (Para
18)

In the present case, a censure entry awarded to
the claimant on 10.04.2017 pertained to the
period 2008-09 and the DPC was convened
firstly
on
13.10.2017
and
thereafter
on
28.03.2018 and again on 30.06.2020. As per the
GOs, the censure entry awarded on 10.04.2017
is to be kept in the service record of the
claimant
in
the
year
2017-18
however
simultaneously a mention is to be made that the
said censure entry pertained to the year 200809. Since there is nothing on record which
can reveal that the claimant was awarded
any other censure entry or punishment
within five years after 2008- 09 and the
censure entry dated 10.04.2017 was the
sole adverse material as such while
considering his promotion to the post of
Head Assistant, the DPC has unlawfully
considered
the
censure
entry
dated
10.04.2017, whereas the said entry ought
to have been ignored. (Para 19)

The DPCs held successively on 13.10.2017 and
thereafter
on
28.03.2018
and
again
on
30.06.2020 have repeated the mistake which
has resulted in denial of right the petitioner
being considered for promotion to the post of
Head Assistant. (Para 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges judgment and
order dated 08.06.2022, passed by U.P.
Public Services Tribunal, whereby the St.
authorities have been directed to consider
the case of the claimant for

## Text

120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner,
the
order/notice
dated
01.05.2010 was passed by the respondent
No.4 and consequently, the petitioner was
superannuated
on
30.06.2010
after
attaining the age of superannuation which
is totally in accordance with law.

6.
On due
consideration
to
the
submissions advanced and perusal of the
record, it is not in dispute that the date of
birth recorded in the service book is
27.06.1950, a notice of retirement was issued
prior to his retirement on 01.05.2010 and the
petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010
after attaining the age of superannuation. The
petitioner is raising dispute regarding the
incorrect date of birth mentioned in the
service book, however, law in this regard has
been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
following judgments:-

(i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. S.M.
Jadhav & Anr. reported in [(2001) 4 SCC
52]

(ii) Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab
& Ors. [CWP No.21166 of 2014]

(iii) Prabhu Lal Son of Shri
Assistant.......vs.
District
Basic
Education.......[order dated 05.12.2003].

7. A perusal of aforesaid judgments
depicts that it is settled law that after attaining
the age of retirement or at the fag end of the
service, an employee cannot dispute the entry
in the service book regarding his date of birth.

8. In view of settled law and in the
peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to challenge the date of
birth recorded in his service book after his
retirement.

9. In view of above, the petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 1766 of 2023

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Praveen Kumar Tewari, Prateek Tewari,
Shikhar Anand

A. Service Law - Promotion - Censure
entry - In a situation where a censure is
being
awarded
to
an
employee
on
10.04.2017 in respect of period of 200809 and in the annual entry for the year
2017-18 he is being rated as a very good
official/officer,
denying
the
claim
of
promotion on the ground of the censure
entry dated 10.04.2017 pertaining to the
period 2008-09 is, thus, not only illegal
being
contrary
to
what
has
been
prescribed in Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993 but is also arbitrary. (Para 20)

As per Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993, the St. Government has provided
that in case any censure entry is available
during the period for which the relevant service
record of an employee is under consideration
and no other adverse entry or punishment is
awarded to such an employee within five years
from the date in respect of which the censure
entry is available, such censure entry shall not
be considered for the purposes of evaluating
satisfactory service of the employee concerned,
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
121
that is to say such censure entry is to be
ignored. (Para 11, 12)

Para 5(4) of the GO dated 25.03.1994
provides that any punishment order issued will
be effective with immediate effect even if it is
issued in respect of some irregularity committed
at a prior point in time. It further provides that
such punishment order shall be kept in the
character roll of the employee concerned in the
year in which it is awarded. Para 6 of GO dated
25.03.1994 St.s that Para 5 of GO dated
25.03.1994 shall be read in conjunction
with
guidelines
given
in
GO
dated
30.06.1993. (Para 14)

From perusal of provision of Para 2 of the
GO dated 06.04.1999, it is clear that it has
been provided therein that in case after enquiry
any censure entry is awarded against an
employee, such censure entry shall be kept in
the character roll of the employee concerned in
the year in which censure entry is awarded,
however, while doing so it shall also be
mentioned, while recording the censure entry in
the year in which it is awarded, that censure
entry related to which year or which post and
what has been the nature of the mistake which
resulted in award of censure entry so that the
actual and natural consequence and effect such
censure entry can be taken into account while
evaluating an employee. Thus, GO dated
06.04.1999, appears to be in complete
sync with provisions contained in Para
2(स) of the GO dated 30.06.1993 which
does not get diluted by the provisions
contained in Para 5(4) of the GO dated
25.03.1993 (which is fortified by the
subsequent GO dated 06.04.1999). (Para
18)

In the present case, a censure entry awarded to
the claimant on 10.04.2017 pertained to the
period 2008-09 and the DPC was convened
firstly
on
13.10.2017
and
thereafter
on
28.03.2018 and again on 30.06.2020. As per the
GOs, the censure entry awarded on 10.04.2017
is to be kept in the service record of the
claimant
in
the
year
2017-18
however
simultaneously a mention is to be made that the
said censure entry pertained to the year 200809. Since there is nothing on record which
can reveal that the claimant was awarded
any other censure entry or punishment
within five years after 2008- 09 and the
censure entry dated 10.04.2017 was the
sole adverse material as such while
considering his promotion to the post of
Head Assistant, the DPC has unlawfully
considered
the
censure
entry
dated
10.04.2017, whereas the said entry ought
to have been ignored. (Para 19)

The DPCs held successively on 13.10.2017 and
thereafter
on
28.03.2018
and
again
on
30.06.2020 have repeated the mistake which
has resulted in denial of right the petitioner
being considered for promotion to the post of
Head Assistant. (Para 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges judgment and
order dated 08.06.2022, passed by U.P.
Public Services Tribunal, whereby the St.
authorities have been directed to consider
the case of the claimant for promotion to
the post of Head Assistant from the post
of Senior Assistant and also to provide
consequential
benefits,
including
the
benefit
of
third
Assured
Career
Progression.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble SubhashVidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the Statepetitioners and Sri Prateek Tewari, learned
counsel representing the respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge in this petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is the judgment and order dated
08.06.2022, passed by U.P. Public Services
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the
Tribunal'), whereby the Claim Petition
No.249 of 2021 filed by the respondent
no.1-claimant has been allowed and while
quashing the order dated 22.12.2020,
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereby
the
respondent-claimant
was
denied promotion to the post of Head
Assistant from the post of Senior Assistant,
the State authorities have been directed to
consider the case of the claimant for
promotion to the said post and also to
provide consequential benefits, including
the benefit of third Assured Career
Progression.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the State-petitioners is that the learned
Tribunal has completely ignored the
Government Order dated 25.03.1994 while
allowing the claim petition and as a matter
of fact on account of availability of a
censure entry awarded to the claimant on
10.04.2017, he could not have been legally
promoted to the post in question. It has
been argued that the case of the claimant
was considered by the Departmental
Promotion
Committed
thrice
i.e.
on
13.10.2017, 28.03.2018 and 30.06.2020,
however, because of availability of the
censure entry awarded to the claimant on
10.04.2017 by all the three Departmental
Promotion Committees his claim for
promotion has rightly been rejected.

4. It has been argued by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners-State authorities that the learned
Tribunal
has
not
considered
the
Government Order dated 25.03.1994 which
unambiguously provides that even if a
censure entry pertains to an incident
occurred previously which is awarded later
on, such censure entry will be effective
from the date of its award and not with
effect from of the date of the incident in
respect of which it is awarded. It has thus
been argued that such stipulation made in
the Government Order dated 25.03.1994
dis-entitles the claimant to claim his
promotion to the post in question.

5. On the other hand, Sri Prateek
Tewari, learned counsel representing the
respondent no.1-claimant has submitted
that in fact the provisions contained in
Government Order dated 25.03.1994 and
the Government Order dated 30.06.1993
are not in conflict with each other and both
operate in different fields. He has also
drawn our attention to another Government
Order dated 06.04.1999 and has stated that
the very purpose of issuance of the said
Government Order is to not only to keep
the censure entry in the service record of
the employee concerned in the year in
which it is awarded, but also to mention as
to for which period the censure entry has
been awarded so that at the time of
evaluation of the character roll of the
employee concerned for any purpose the
natural consequence/effect of such censure
entry awarded later in respect of an earlier
incident may be assessed.

6. The submission made by Sri Tewari
further is that though the claimant was
awarded censure entry on 10.04.2017,
however, since while making assessment of
annual confidential report for the year
2017-18 the claimant was rated as a very
good official/officer as such the censure
entry awarded in the mid of 2017 i.e. on
10.04.2017 will lose its efficacy so for as
the promotion of claimant to the post in
question is concerned for the reason that
the said censure entry pertained to the
period 2008-09. The submission, thus is
that
the
writ
petition
is
highly
misconceived and is based on complete
misreading of the provisions contained in
the Government Order dated 25.03.1994
and in ignorance of what has been
prescribed by the Government in its
Government
Order
dated
06.04.1999,
which is liable to be dismissed at its
threshold.
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
123

7. The fate of this writ petition
depends on deciphering the actual purport
and correct construction of the provisions
contained in the Government Order dated
25.03.1994
vis-a-vis
the
provisions
contained in the Government Orders dated
30.06.1993 and 06.04.1999.

8. The petitioner is working in the
Commercial Tax Department on the post of
Senior Assistant and has been claiming his
promotion to the post of Head Assistant.
His case though has been considered thrice
by the Departmental Promotion Committee,
as noted above, however, on all these three
occasions he has been denied promotion to
the post in question for the reason that he
was
awarded
a
censure
entry
on
10.40.2017.

9. First of all, we will examine as to
what prescription is available in the
Government Order dated 30.06.1993.

10. Learned counsel for the State
authorities-petitioners has referred to the
provisions contained in Para 2 (स) of the
said Government Order dated 30.06.1993,
which is quoted hereunder:

"(2) 1⁄4l1⁄2 ;fn ml vof/k esa] ftlds
lsokfHkys[k mijksDrkuqlkj fopkj {ks= esa vkrs gksa] dksbZ
fuUnk izfof"V fo|eku gks vkSj ml fuUnk izfof"V ls
lacaf/kr ?kVuk dh frfFk ds ckn dh vxys ikap o"kZ dh
vof/k esa dksbZ vU; izfrdwyrk 1⁄4;Fkk izfrdwy izfof"V]
n.M vkfn1⁄2 u gks rks ml fuUnk izfof"V dks
larks"ktud lsok ds ewY;kadu gsrq fopkj esa u fy;k
tk;s vFkkZr~ mls utjvUnkt dj fn;k tk;sA"

11. When we peruse the afore-quoted
provision, what we find is that the State
Government has provided that in case any
censure entry is available during the period
for which the relevant service record of an
employee is under consideration and no
other adverse entry or punishment is
awarded to such an employee within five
years from the date in respect of which the
censure entry is available, such censure
entry shall not be considered for the
purposes of evaluating satisfactory service
of the employee concerned, that is to say
such censure entry is to be ignored.

12. Accordingly, we are very clear in
our mind that in case during the period in
respect of which service record of an
employee is under consideration if only
solitary censure entry is available which
pertains to some previous period and is not
coupled with any other adverse material
including the adverse entry or punishment
etc. awarded within five years from the
incident which had resulted in award of
censure, such adverse entry is to be ignored
and it will have no impact so far as the
assessment of the employee concerned for
the
purposes
of
determination
of
satisfactory service is concerned.

13. Now, we examine the provisions
as relied upon by the learned counsel
representing
the
State
authoritiespetitioners contained in the Government
Order dated 25.03.1994. Learned State
Counsel has relied upon Para 5 (4) and Para
6 of the said Government Order, which are
quoted hereunder:

"5- of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa iz'uxr
ekeys esa eq>s fuEufyf[kr fLFkfr dks Li"V djus
o 'kkldh; fu.kZ; ls vkidks voxr djkus dk
निर्देश gqvk gS&

1⁄441⁄2 izR;sd vfu;ferrk ds lEcU/k esa
pkgs os fdlh iwoZ o"kZ dh gks] tks Hkh n.Mkns'k
fuxZr fd;k tk;sxk] mldk rkRdkfy'k izHkko gksxk
rFkk n.Mkns'k fuxZr gksus ds fnukad ls lEcfU/kr
o"kZ dh okf"kZd izfof"V ds lkFk mls j[kk tk;sxkA

6- vuqjks/k gS fd lUnHkZxr 'kklukns'k
fnukad 30 twu] 1993 esa fu/kkZfjr lkekU;
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ekxZn'kZd fl)kUrksa dks mijksDr izLrj&5 ds lkFk
i<+k tk; o mudk d`i;k lHkh Lrjksa ij dM+kbZ ls
vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A"

14. Paragraph 5 (4) of the Government
Order dated 25.03.1994 as afore-quoted
provides that any punishment order issued
will be effective with immediate effect
even if it is issued in respect of some
irregularity committed at a prior point in
time.
It
further
provides
that
such
punishment order shall be kept in the
character roll of the employee concerned in
the year in which it is awarded. Paragraph 6
states that the Government Order dated
30.06.1993 shall be read in conjunction
which para 5 of the Government Order
dated 30.06.1993.

15. If we compare Paragraph 5 (4)
available in the Government Order dated
25.03.1994 and Paragraph 2 (स) of the
Government Order dated 30.06.1993, we
do not find that there is any conflict
between the said provisions. In fact both
operate in different fields. So far as
Paragraph 5 (4) of the Government Order
dated 25.03.1994 is concerned, according
to our considered opinion, the same
provides as to in the character roll of which
year punishment awarded to a government
employee has to be kept and from what
date will it be effective. Whereas so far as
the provisions contained in Paragraph 2 (स)
of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993
is concerned, the same, in our considered
opinion, provides that even if a censure
entry is available in the service record of an
employee awarded in a year subsequent to
the year in which any irregularity is said to
have been committed which has resulted in
award of censure entry, the same is to be
ignored for the purposes of assessment of
satisfactory
service
of
an
employee
provided that during next five years from
the date of incident in respect of which
censure entry was awarded, the employee
concerned has not been awarded with any
other censure entry or punishment.

16. Accordingly, Paragraph 5 (4) of
the Government Order dated 25.06.1994
does not in any manner dilute the
provisions contained in Paragraph 2 (स) of
the Government Order dated 30.06.1993.
The said interpretation and construction of
the provisions contained in the Paragraph 2
(स) of the Government Order dated
30.06.1993 has a rationale too which is that
in a situation where a censure entry is
awarded to an employee in respect of an
incident or alleged irregularity said to have
occurred or committed in past and
considerable time has elapsed since then,
taking into consideration award of censure
entry for the purposes of reckoning the
satisfactory service, in our opinion, will be
highly arbitrary.

17. Our view that Paragraph 5 (4) of
the Government Order dated 25.03.1994
does not in any manner dilute or rescind the
provisions contained in Paragraph 2 (स) of
the Government Order dated 30.06.1993, is
fortified by a subsequent Government
Order dated 06.04.1999. Paragraph 2 of the
said Government Order dated 06.04.1999 is
quoted hereunder:

"2- eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS
fd ,sls izdj.kksa ij ftlesa tkapksijkUr lsalj ;k
fuUnkRed izfof"V fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk
gS] og izfof"V lacaf/kr deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dh
pfj=&iaftdk esa mlh o"kZ dh izfof"V esa j[kh
tk;sxh ftl o"kZ lsULkj vFkok fuUnkRed izfof"V
fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA og mYYks[k
vo'; dj fn;k tk; fd izdj.k lacaf/kr ds
lsokdky ds fdl in o o"kZ ls lacaf/kr jgk gS
vkSj izkIr dh x;h =qfV fdl izd`fr dh jgh gS
ftlls pfj= iaftdk dk ewY;kadu djrs le; nh
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
125
x;h izfof"V ds LokHkkfod vlj dks n`f"Vxr j[kk
tk ldsA"

18. From a perusal of the afore-quoted
provision
of
Paragraph
2
of
the
Government Order dated 06.04.1999, it is
clear that it has been provided therein that
in case after enquiry any censure entry is
awarded against an employee, such censure
entry shall be kept in the character roll of
the employee concerned in the year in
which censure entry is awarded, however,
while doing so it shall also be mentioned,
while recording the censure entry in the
year in which it is awarded, that censure
entry related to which year or which post
and what has been the nature of the mistake
which resulted in award of censure entry so
that the actual and natural consequence and
effect of such censure entry can be taken
into account while evaluating an employee.
Thus,
the
Government
Order
dated
06.04.1999, to us, appears to be in
complete sync with provisions contained in
Paragraph 2 (स) of the Government Order
dated 30.06.1993 which, as observed
above, does not get diluted by the
provisions contained in Paragraph 5 (4) of
the Government Order dated 25.03.1993.

19. So far as the facts of the present case
are concerned, admittedly a censure entry
awarded to the claimant on 10.04.2017
pertained to the period 2008-09 and the
Departmental Promotion Committee was
convened firstly on 13.10.2017 and thereafter
on 28.03.2018 and again on 30.06.2020. As
per the Government Orders as discussed
above, the censure entry awarded on
10.04.2017 is to be kept in the service record
of the claimant in the year 2017-18 however
simultaneously a mentioned is to be made
that the said censure entry pertained to the
year 2008-09. Since there is nothing on
record which can reveal that the claimant was
awarded
any
other
censure
entry
or
punishment within five years after 2008-09
and the censure entry dated 10.04.2017 was
the sole adverse material as such in our
opinion while considering his promotion to
the post of Head Assistant the Departmental
Promotion
Committee
has
unlawfully
considered
the
censure
entry
dated
10.04.2017, whereas the said entry ought to
have been ignored.

20.
The
Departmental
Promotion
Committees held successively on 13.10.2017
and thereafter on 28.03.2018 and again on
30.06.2020 have repeated the mistake which
has resulted in denial of right the petitioner
being considered for promotion to the post of
Head Assistant. Even otherwise, what the
learned Tribunal has noticed is that for the
year 2017-18 the annual character roll entry
of the claimant was "very good". In a
situation where a censure is being awarded to
an employee on 10.04.2017 in respect of
period of 2008-09 and in the annual entry for
the year 2017-18 he is being rated as a very
good official/officer, denying the claim of
promotion on the ground of the censure entry
dated 10.04.2017 pertaining to the period
2008-09 is, thus, not only illegal being
contrary to what has been prescribed in
Paragraph 2 (स) of the Government Order
dated 30.06.1993 but is also arbitrary.

21. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
in complete agreement with the judgment
passed by the U.P. State Public Services
Tribunal which is under challenge herein.

22. The writ petition thus lacks merit,
which is hereby

23. The judgment of the learned
Tribunal shall be complied with within a
period of two months from today. This
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order shall be communicated by learned
State Counsel to the authority concerned
forthwith.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 126
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 1811 of 2023

Smt. Madhavi Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
O.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Society Employees' Service Regulation,
1975 - Regulation 104(V); Uttar Pradesh
Dying in Harness Rules 1974 - Exclusion of
married daughter from the ambit of family
in the Note appended in sub clause (V) in
Regulation 104 of the Regulations of 1975
is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, the word 'unmarried'
in the said Note is struck down. (Para 14)

The definition of family occurring in the Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 is pari materia with Note
appended to Regulation 104 of the Regulations
of 1975 and the definition of family included the
daughter but excluded married daughter. The
assumption that after marriage, a daughter
cannot be said to be a member of the family of
her father or that she ceases to be dependent
on
her
father
irrespective
of
social
circumstances cannot be countenanced.

B. The test in matters of compassionate
appointment is a test of dependency
within defined relationships. There are
situations where a son of the deceased
government servant may not be in need of
compassionate
appointment
because
the
economic and financial position of the family of
the deceased are not such as to require the
grant of compassionate appointment on a
preferential basis. But the dependency or a
lack of dependency is a matter which is
not determined a priori on the basis of
whether or not the son is married.
Similarly, whether or not a daughter of a
deceased
should
be
granted
compassionate appointment has to be
defined with reference to whether, on a
consideration of all relevant facts and
circumstances, she was dependent on the
deceased government servant. Excluding
daughters purely on the ground of marriage
would constitute an impermissible discrimination
and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution. (Para 12, 13)

A direction is issued to the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment again in light of the
decision of the Full Bench in the case of Vimla
Srivastava (infra) as well as the directions
issued hereinabove and the case of the
petitioner would not be rejected merely on the
ground that she is a married daughter. (Para 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2016
(2) ESC 660 (AIL (DB) (Para 11)

Present petition assails the orders dated
29.06.2021 and 01.07.2022, passed by
opposite party No. 2 i.e. Secretary, Uttar
Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Services
Board, Lucknow, rejecting the claim of the
petitioner for appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)