A married daughter is eligible for an appointment on a compassionate basis: Allahabad High Court
Exclusion of a married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, the appointment of a married daughter on a compassionate basis is not illegal. Such an opinion was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Chief Justice RAJESH BINDAL &amp; Hon’ble Justice PIYUSH AGRAWAL in the matter of State of U.P. through Secretary Ministry of Labour and ors vs Pooja Singh [Writ-A No. 42491 of 2017]. 
The facts of the case were that the father of the respondent died in service, at the time of the death she was minor, and on attaining maturity she applied for an appointment on a compassionate basis on 13.10.1999. While the pendency of such application she got married on 01.12.2001. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the respondent has knowingly concealed the fact that she is married. 

The Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment given in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. The State Of U.P. And Another 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble court held that “This Court held that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck down.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that “it is evident that when the respondent filed an application seeking compassionate appointment, she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01, 2001, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent. ”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that the father of the respondent died in service, at the time of the death she was minor, and on attaining maturity she applied for an appointment on a compassionate basis on 13.10.1999. While the pendency of such application she got married on 01.12.2001. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the respondent has knowingly concealed the fact that she is married.  
The Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment given in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. The State Of U.P. And Another 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble court held that “This Court held that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck down.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that “it is evident that when the respondent filed an application seeking compassionate appointment, she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01, 2001, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent. ”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment given in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. The State Of U.P. And Another 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble court held that “This Court held that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck down.” 
Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that “it is evident that when the respondent filed an application seeking compassionate appointment, she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01, 2001, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent. ”

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that “it is evident that when the respondent filed an application seeking compassionate appointment, she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01, 2001, whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent. ” 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Chief Justice s Court Serial No. 40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 6621 Writ A No. 424917) Reserved on October 26 2021 Delivered on November 25 2021 State of U.P. through Secretary Ministry of Labour and others Through: Mr. Rama Nand Pandey Advocate Through: Mr. Om Prakash Singh Advocate Coram: HON BLE RAJESH BINDAL CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL JUDGE RAJESH BINDAL C.J Order dated January 25 2021 passed by learned Single Judge has been challenged by the State by filing the present intra Court The respondent had approached this Court challenging the order dated September 1 2017 whereby the order of her appointment on compassionate basis was cancelled on the ground that she had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of initial appointment 2 9Special AppealNo. 6621 Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is a case where respondent had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of the compassionate appointment hence there being concealment of fact her appointment is liable to be cancelled. Relying upon Rule 2(c)(iii) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) it is submitted that married daughter is not included in the definition of the “family”. That being so the appointment granted to the respondent on compassionate basis was liable to be withdrawn. As such there was no error in the order withdrawing compassionate appointment granted to the respondent and learned Single Judge has wrongly quashed the same On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that exclusion of unmarried daughter from the definition of the family vide Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules was struck down by this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2016(1) ADJ 21of the Rules. Special Leave Petition No. 226416against the same was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23 It is further submitted that at the time when the respondent filed application for appointment on compassionate basis she was not married hence there was no concealment of fact as such. Marriage took place thereafter. She being in service for the last 15 years and having family to support should not be thrown out of service. At present she would be over age for entry into service book. 3 9Special AppealNo. 6621 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper As is evident from the fact on record father of the respondent who was working as Labour Inspector in the Labour Department died during service in September 1980. The respondent was an infant at that time. She attained majority in the year 1998. Only thereafter she filed application for appointment on compassionate basis on October 13 1999. Her case remained pending for a period of about six years. During interregnum period on December 1 2001 she got married. In pursuance of order dated July 21 2006 issued by Government giving appointment to the respondent on a Class III post Deputy Labour Commissioner on November 4 2006 issued appointment letter pursuant whereof the respondent joined service From the aforesaid fact it is evident that when the respondent filed application seeking compassionate appointment she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01 2001 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13 1999. Hence it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent Rule 2of the Rules defines “family” as under “2. Definitions. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant i) Wife or husband ii) Sons iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters ” 4 9Special AppealNo. 6621 Validity of the aforesaid provision whereby married daughters were excluded for consideration for appointment on compassionate basis was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava s caseof the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional hence was struck down. Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23 2019 in Neha Srivastava s case(Rajesh Bindal Judge Chief Justice Whether the order is speaking : Whether the order is reportable : √Yes No