Julie Kumari Mehta vs Ranchi University and Others

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 19th July, 2011, by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the writ

petitioner-appellant, who is married daughter of the deceased employee and seeking compassionate appointment.

The learned Single Judge observed that married daughter cannot get benefit and she is not falling within the definition of dependent for the

purpose of giving compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvass that it will be violation of even human rights and it

will be discrimination and violation to the Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner-appellant, in the Scheme, has been denied the benefit and it has no relation with the human

rights or violation under Article 15 of the Constitution in any manner. It appears that Scheme has been framed in the larger interest, so that there

may not be unnecessary dispute within the family from the married daughters.

In view of the above reason, there being no merit, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.