Smt. Hema Suyal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee who died in harness in the year 2004. At that time the father of the petitioner was working as a Village Panchayat Officer in the services of the Government of Uttarakhand. At the time of her father's death, petitioner was already married. She moved an application in the year 2017 for appointment on compassionate ground which has been rejected vide order dated 06.12.2017 on ground that the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee who does not come under the definition of a family as given in Rule 2(c) of the Rules. Rule 2(c) of the Rules reads as under:-

"2. Definitions.- in these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-(a)...

(b)...

(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant :

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons;

(iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;

(iv) if the deceased was unmarried Government servant, brother, unmarried sister and widowed mother dependant on the deceased Government servant;"

The aforesaid definition though includes "unmarried daughter", but not a "married daughter" which the petitioner was at the time when her father died in harness. The petitioner in support of her case has relied upon the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P.), where this provision has been declared to be discriminatory and the "married daughter" has been included in the definition of a family.

In view of the above, though the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that she was the married daughter but in any case the appointment is not liable to be given to the petitioner for the following reasons:-

Firstly, the death occurred in the year 2004 and the petitioner has not given any proof of the fact that she was dependent upon her father even at that relevant time in the year 2004 or now. Secondly, what is more important is that the appointment on compassionate ground is being sought in the year 2017 i.e. after 13 years from the death of her father, Thirdly, the compassionate appointments are made so that the family which has lost its only breadwinner be able to withstand the hardship which has befallen upon the family. Moreover, after 13 years, the family is not under the same condition as it was in the year 2004 and further the petitioner at the moment is 42 years of age.

Considering all these facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.