Married daughters eligible on companionate grounds: Allahabad High Court

The petitioner, Manjul Srivastava has impugned an order of June the 25th, 2020, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The question, that arises here, is: “Whether the judgment of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, striking down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c) (iii) of the Rules, entitles a married daughter to a consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment without an amendment to the Rules made by the State Government, expressly including ‘married daughter’ in the expression ‘family’, defined under Rule 2(c)?

The decision of their Lordships of the Division Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) held the provisions of Rule 2(c) (iii) of the Rules to be unconstitutional and struck it down in the following terms: “In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression “family” in Rule 2 (c) of the Dyingin- 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.”The impugned order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law, which shall mean without reference to her marital status, within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order.

Justice JJ Munir held that marital status of a daughter alone cannot be the ground for rejecting her application for compassionate appointment in terms of the UP Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Case: Manjul Srivastava v. State of UP & Ors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s