1974 Harness Rules | Allahabad High Court Asks Authority To Reconsider Married Daughter's Compassionate Employment Claim

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that the definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) and Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not require the person seeking compassionate appointment to be dependent on the deceased employee.While directing the authorities to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment moved by the married daughter of the deceased employee, Justice Abdul Moin held,“Rules, 1974 only defines the word Family as per Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5, which specifically governs the compassionate appointment, also does not indicate that a person seeking compassionate appointment should be a dependent of the deceased government servant. It cannot be a case that when a word is not included under the Rules, 1974, the respondents may add any word in order to deprive the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.”'Family' in Rule 2(c) of 1974 Rules includes wife or husband, sons and adopted sons, daughters (including adopted daughters) and widowed daughters-in-law, unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried. Rule 5 provided that one member of the family who is not already employed under the Central Government or State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or State Government, on making an application in suitable manner in the Government Service in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person fulfills the educational qualification.Petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee who died in-harness. Her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on grounds that being married, she was no longer dependent on the deceased employee and was not entitled to compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. The High Court on earlier occasion had directed the authorities to reconsider her claim. The authorities had passed an order rejecting petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on grounds that her two brothers were working in Government jobs and her mother was receiving pension every month. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Madhavi Mishra and 2 Others while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. While challenging the rejection order, counsel for petitioner argued that the decision of the High Court in Madhavi Mishra did not pertain to 1974 Rules. Reliance was placed on Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another, whereby Allahabad High Court had directed reconsideration of claim of a married daughter for compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules. It was argued that 1974 Rules do not place any bar on petitioner's appointment if her brothers are in government service or if the mother is receiving pension. The Court observed that in the case of Madhavi Mishra, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had considered the provisions of 1955 regulations and not the 1974 Regulations. Accordingly, the same was held inapplicable in the case of the petitioner. The Court observed that in Kumari Nisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, the Allahabad High Court had held that son being in government service is not a bar on other family members seeking compassionate appointment as his earnings are for survival of his family (wife and children). It was held that legislature has consciously amended the provision to prohibit other members of the family from seeking compassionate appointment only if the spouse of the deceased is in government employment.Accordingly, the Court held that brothers being in government service and mother receiving pension were not bar of petitioner (married daughter) seeking compassionate appointment. Case Title: Smt. Kavita Tiwari v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. Of U.P.Lko And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233 [WRIT - A No. - 556 of 2022]Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 233Click Here To Read/Download Order

1974 Harness Rules | Allahabad High Court Asks Authority To Reconsider Married Daughter's Compassionate Employment Claim

Upasna Agrawal

Tags