AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri Siddhartha Bisht, Advocate for the Petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
The Petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 28.5.2010 by which the forest department has considered and thereafter rejected the claim of the Petitioner for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (from hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The case of the Petitioner is that her father was an employee in the forest department and died on 1.6.2005 while in harness and subsequently she moved an application for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules. Since appointment was not given to the Petitioner, she was earlier constrained to file a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1489 of 2005 (S/S), which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court with the direction that the Respondent shall consider the appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground under the Rules. The operative portion of the order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the observations made aforesaid and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.
Consequently, the department considered and thereafter rejected the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, as the Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased and a married daughter cannot be given appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.
In view of this Court, the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is absolutely appropriate. The word "Family" is defined under Rule 2C of the Rules which reads as under:
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;
Therefore only unmarried and widowed daughter come under the definition of "family" and thereafter the claim of the Petitioner has rightly been rejected. Moreover, this fact has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by the Petitioner earlier. Based on these facts, the Petitioner does not have any right for appointment under the Rules on compassionate grounds. Her claim has rightly been rejected.
The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.