AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 375 wordsDilip Gupta, J.—The claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the order dated 18th July, 2011 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur on the ground that a daughter-in-law is not entitled for compassionate appointment.
It is submitted by Sri M.A. Ausaf, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the decision of this Court in Zila Panchayat Vs. Lalti Devi and State of U.P., a daughter-in-law is also entitled to compassionate appointment.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for Respondent No. 1. Sri K.S. Kushwaha appears for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents state that since only a legal issue is involved, it may not be necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition may be decided at this stage.
The Division Bench of this Court in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi (supra) observed as follows:
In this view of the matter, the daughter-in-law, who becomes a member of the family of her husband, in our view, is included in the definition of ''family'' of father-in-law and after his death, in the absence of any other legal heir, she is entitled to claim compassionate appointment provided all other conditions as required in law for such recruitment are fulfilled. We make it clear that the aforesaid right of daughter-in-law would not be available, if she has remarried or repatriated to her parents place and in such case the position would be different....
The persons who are entitled to compassionate appointment mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 15th May, 2010 are same as under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. The Petitioner is, therefore, justified in placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision of this Court.
In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court, it is not possible to sustain the order dated 18th July, 2011 passed by the District Basic Education Officer. It is, accordingly, set aside. The District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur shall now examine the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi (supra).
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
