# U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd v. Smt. Sunita & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 607 of 2016
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-rajya-vidyut-utpadan-nigam-ltd-v-smt-sunita-ors-45551
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Siddharth Khare

A. Service - Compassionate Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974: Rule 2(c) - The Court in the present
case followed the law upheld by the Apex Court that
'exclusion of married daughter' from the ambit of the
expression of 'family' in Rule 2 (c), was illegal and
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution and therefore the word
'unmarried' has been rightly struck down.

Appeal dismissed.

Precedent followed:

## Text

1638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
must reveal a rational nexus between
the two."

33. The Apex Court also in Competition
Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68
referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial
Singh Fijji (supra) said:

"Reasons are the links between the
materials on which certain conclusions are based
and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted
in all courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the
concept of reasoned judgment has become an
indispensable part of basic rule of law and in
fact, is a mandatory requirement of the
procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to
clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is
foundation of a just and fair decision."

34. In view of the above, the punishment
order dated 05.09.2009 being based on the
enquiry report dated 18.03.2007, which is vitiated
under the law, and non speaking is liable to be
interfered with.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 05.09.2009 is hereby
quashed.

36. In view of the facts of the case to the
effect that the petitioner has expired and the
matter can not be remanded back to the
disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry a
fresh as well as keeping in view the principle
of no work no pay, I am of the view that the
petitioner (now deceased) would not be
entitled to back wages for the intervening
period.

37. However, the family members of the
petitioner (now deceased) would be entitled for
the consequential benefits, which are available
to them, under the relevant Rules of Bank.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1638

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 607 of 2016

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Khare

A. Service - Compassionate Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974: Rule 2(c) - The Court in the present
case followed the law upheld by the Apex Court that
'exclusion of married daughter' from the ambit of the
expression of 'family' in Rule 2 (c), was illegal and
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution and therefore the word
'unmarried' has been rightly struck down.

Appeal dismissed.

Precedent followed:

1. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
another, Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015 (Para 2, 8)

2. Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka, 2005 (104)
FLR 271 (Para 3)

3. Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5592 of
2009, decided on 13.08.2014 (Para 3)

4. S. Kavita Vs. The District Collector, Writ
Petition No. 16153 of 2015, decided on
09.06.2015 (Para 3)
2 All. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita & Ors.
1639
5. Purnima Das Vs. The State of West Bengal,
Writ Petition No. 33967 (W) of 2013, decided
on 19.03.2014 (Para 3)

Precedent distinguished:

Mudita Vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.
49766 of 2015, decided on 10.09.2015 (Para 3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The application for compassionate
appointment
of
the
writ
petitionerrespondent under the dying in Harness
Rules due to the death of her father, was
rejected vide order dated 03.3.2016, on the
ground that the married daughter was not
included in the definition of 'family' as
described under Section 2 (c) of the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules, 1974").

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the
writ
petitioner-respondent
has
approached the learned Single Judge. The
learned Single Judge vide impugned order
dated 03.5.2016 allowed the writ petition
relying upon a judgment passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C
No.60881 of 2015, (Smt. Vimla Srivastava
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) and connected
matters wherein the Division Bench had
held that the 'exclusion of married
daughter' from the ambit of the expression
of 'family' in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974
was illegal and unconstitutional being
violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution and accordingly the Division
Bench struck down the word 'unmarried' in
Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Rules 1974.

3. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

"Specifically in the context of
compassionate appointments various High
Courts have taken the view that a woman
who is married cannot be denied entry into
service on compassionate appointment
merely on the ground of marriage. This
view was taken by a learned Single Judge
of the Karnataka High Court in Manjula
vs. State of Karnataka,2005 (104) FLR
271. The same view has been adopted by a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
in Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition
No.5592 of 2009, decided on 13 August
2014, where it was held that the exclusion
of a married daughter for the grant of a
retail kerosene license on the death of the
license holder was not justifiable. The
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
held as follows:

"This exclusion of a married
daughter does not appear to be based on
any logic or other justifiable criteria.
Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a
legal representative of a license holder
cannot be held to her disadvantage in the
matter of seeking transfer of license in her
name on the death of the license holder.
Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India the right of a citizen to carry on
any trade or business is preserved. Under
Article 19(6) reasonable restrictions with
regard
to
professional
or
technical
qualifications necessary for carrying on
any trade or business could be imposed.
Similarly,
gender
discrimination
is
prohibited
by
Article
15
of
the
Constitution. The exclusion of a married
daughter from the purview of expression
"family" in the Licensing Order of 1979 is
not only violative of Article 15 but the
same also infringes the right guaranteed
by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution."

The same view has been adopted
by a learned Single Judge of the Madras
1640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
High Court in S Kavitha vs. The District
Collector, Writ Petition No.16153 of 2015,
decided on 9 June 2015. A learned Single
Judge of the Kolkata High Court in
Purnima Das vs. The State of West
Bengal, Writ Petition No.33967 (W) of
2013 decided on 19 March 2014 has held
that while appointment on compassionate
ground cannot be claimed as a matter of
right, at the same time, it was not open to
the State to adopt a discriminatory policy
by excluding a married daughter from the
ambit of compassionate appointment.

We are in respectful agreement
with the view which has been expressed on
the subject by diverse judgments of the High
Courts to which we have made reference
above.

During the course of submissions,
our attention was also drawn to the
judgment rendered by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in Mudita vs. State of
U.P., Writ Petition No.49766 of 2015,
decided on 10 September 2015. The learned
Single Judge while proceeding to deal with
an identical issue of the right of a married
daughter to be considered under the Dyingin-Harness Rules observed that a married
daughter is a part of the family of her
husband and could not therefore be expected
to continue to provide for the family of the
deceased government servant. The judgment
proceeds on the premise that marriage
severs all relationships that the daughter
may have had with her parents. In any case
it shuts out the consideration of the claim of
the married daughter without any enquiry on
the issue of dependency. In the view that we
have taken we are unable to accept or affirm
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge
and are constrained to hold that Mudita
does not lay down the correct position of the
law.

In conclusion, we hold that the
exclusion of married daughters from the
ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c)
of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and
unconstitutional, being violative of Articles
14 and 15 of the Constitution.

We, accordingly, strike down the
word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the
Dying-in-Harness Rules.

In consequence, we direct that the
claim of the petitioners for compassionate
appointment shall be reconsidered. We
clarify that the competent authority would be
at liberty to consider the claim for
compassionate appointment on the basis of
all the relevant facts and circumstances and
the petitioners shall not be excluded from
consideration only on the ground of their
marital status."

4. Accordingly, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition and directed
the competent authority to consider the
claim of the writ petitioner-respondent for
compassionate appointment.

5. The appellant has approached this
Court by way of filing the present special
appeal against the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent at the outset pointed out
that
the
relied
upon
judgment
was
challenged by the State of U.P. before the
Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order
dated 23.7.2019 passed in Special Leave to
Appeal Civil No.22646 of 2016 and
connected matters has dismissed the special
leave to appeal.

7. We have perused the impugned
judgment as well as the relied upon judgment.

8. The learned Single Judge has
rightly followed the judgment passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in the
2 All. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raj Laxmi & Ors.
1641
matter of Vimla Srivastava (supra) and
now it has been brought on record that the
said judgment has been upheld by the
Apex Court also, therefore, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, this special appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1641

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY,
J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 617 of 2016

U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Raj Laxmi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Sri Abhishek
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Chintamani Yadav

A.
Service
Law-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servants Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974: Rule 2(c) - The Court in the
present
case
directed
'divorced
married
daughter' to be considered for compassionate
appointment. Court followed the law upheld by
the Apex Court that 'exclusion of married
daughter' from the ambit of the expression of
'family' in Rule 2 (c), was illegal and
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution and therefore the
word 'unmarried' has been rightly struck down.

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
another, Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015 (Para 2, 8)

2. Manjula Vs. State of Karnataka, 2005 (104)
FLR 271 (Para 3)

3. Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao Vs. The
State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 5592 of
2009, decided on 13.08.2014 (Para 3)

4. S. Kavita Vs. The District Collector, Writ
Petition No. 16153 of 2015, decided on
09.06.2015 (Para 3)

5. Purnima Das Vs. The State of West Bengal,
Writ Petition No. 33967 (W) of 2013, decided
on 19.03.2014 (Para 3)

Precedent distinguished:

Mudita Vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.
49766 of 2015, decided on 10.09.2015 (Para 3)

Appeal against the judgment and order
dated 18.03.2016, passed by Division
Bench of High Court of Allahabad.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The application for compassionate
appointment
of
the
writ
petitionerrespondent under the dying in Harness
Rules due to the death of her father, was
rejected vide order dated 05.5.2014, on the
ground that the divorced married daughter
was not included in the definition of
'family' as described under Section 2 (c) of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules, 1974").

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the
writ
petitioner-respondent
has