High Court · 2025

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deput y St at e General Advocat e Ut t arakhand/ appellant . 2. None appeared for respondent . 3. This int ra court appeal is filed by St at e, challenging j udgm ent and order dat ed 24.04.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion No.691 of 2016 ( S/ S) . By said j udgm ent , exclusion of m arried daught er from t he am bit of expression “ fam ily” under Rule 2( c) of t he U.P. Recruit m ent of Dependent s of Governm ent Servant s Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 was declared t o be illegal and unconst it ut ional and violat ive of Art icle 14, 15 and 16 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia and respondent s were direct ed t o consider claim of pet it ioner com passionat e appoint m ent wit hin eight weeks. 4. St at e has challenged said j udgm ent on t he ground t hat upon m arriage, a daught er do not financially dependent upon her parent s and she becom es dependent upon her husband and she get s right of inherit ance et c. in fam ily of her husband/ in- laws of which she becom es a m em ber. I t is furt her is given t hat a wom an cont ended com passionat e appoint m ent in t he event of unfort unat e deat h of her husband, rem ain is ent it led furt her cont ended who is t he breadwinner in t he fam ily. I t t hat daught er cannot be com pared wit h t he son as he rem ains wit h his parent s even aft er his m arriage, while a daught er goes away from her parent s and becom es m em ber of fam ily of her husband, t herefore, t he reasoning given by learned Single Judge, for int erfering wit h applicable Rules t hat when a m arried son t o com passionat e appoint m ent upon deat h of his fat her, t hen a m arried daught er cannot be denied such benefit , unsust ainable. 5. This Court is not im pressed by said subm ission. Aft er considering sim ilar subm issions, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court t he case of Vim la Srivast ava ( Writ C) No.60881 of 2015 and ot her connect ed pet it ions) decided on 04.12.2015, has st ruck down pari- m at eria provision cont ained in Rule 2( c) ( iii) of t he Rules dealing wit h com passionat e appoint m ent in St at e of U.P. by holding t hat it result s in gender discrim inat ion. 6. A Full Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No.187 of 2017 also had an occasion t o consider validit y of Rule 2( c) of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and it was held t hat definit ion of fam ily in Rule 2( c) of 1974 Rules has t o be read down t o unconst it ut ional. Operat ive port ion of j udgm ent rendered by Full Bench Special Appeal No.187 of 2017 reproduced below: - “ 66. We answer t he reference holding t hat : - in harness, who i. Quest ion No.1 should be answered in t he affirm at ive. I t is only a dependent m em ber of t he fam ily, of t he Governm ent servant who died ent it led t o be considered for appoint m ent , on com passionat e grounds, bot h under t he 1974 Rules and t he 1975 Regulat ions. ii. Quest ion No.2 should also be answered t he affirm at ive. Non- inclusion of " a m arried daught er" in t he definit ion of a " fam ily" , under Rule 2( c) of t he 1974 Rules and t he not e below Regulat ion 104 of t he 1975 Regulat ions, t hereby deny ing her t he opport unit y of being considered for com passionat e appoint m ent , even t hough she was dependent on t he Governm ent servant at t he t im e of his deat h, is discrim inat ory and is in violat ion of Art icles 14, 15 and 16 in Part I I I of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. iii. We, however, read down t he definit ion of " fam ily" , in Rule 2( c) of t he 1974 Rules and t he not e below Regulat ion 104 of t he 1975 Regulat ions, t o save it from being held unconst it ut ional. As a result a " m arried daught er" shall also be held t o fall wit hin t he inclusive definit ion of t he “ fam ily” of t he deceased Governm ent servant , for t he purpose of being provided com passionat e appoint m ent under t he 1974 Rules and t he 1975 Regulat ions.” im pugned j udgm ent ,

7. Since view t aken by learned Single Judge consonance wit h t he view t aken by Full Bench of t his Court in Special Appeal No.187 of 2017, t herefore, we do not find any int erfere wit h im pugned j udgm ent . Accordingly, special appeal is dism issed. reason t o ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m ar Ti w a r i , J.)

23.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE25 21F982, cn=ARTI SINGH