HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.138 of 2007 (S/S)
Smt. Sur Suti
Widow of Sri Munni Lal … Petitioner
Versus
Establishment Officer
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture
& Technology, Pant Nagar
District U. S. Ngar & another … Respondents
Dated:- 18th May, 2010
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel assisted by
Sri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra
Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Geeta Parihar, the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Nanhu was a regular
employee in the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology,
Pant Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar and died in harness on 11th January,
1996 leaving behind the petitioner and her minor children as the only
legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the
deceased employee and her husband had died much earlier to the death
of the petitioner’s father in law. Upon the death of the petitioner’s
husband, the petitioner was supported by her father in law.
3. Upon the death of the petitioner’s father in law, the petitioner
moved an application on 15th April, 1996 for an appointment on
compassionate grounds. Since the application of the petitioner
remained pending, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.885 of
2004 (S/S), which was disposed of by an order dated 09th March, 2006
directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment.
4. Based on the aforesaid direction, the respondents by an order
dated 18th August, 2006 rejected the application of the petitioner on the
ground that the daughter in law is not defined as a dependant in the
2
scheme adopted by the respondents for appointment on compassionate
grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ
petition.
5. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which a
scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has been annexed.
Chapter XIII(1)(d) of the Statutes of the University provides for
appointment of a dependant of a deceased employee on compassionate
grounds. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:-
“(d) A dependent (wife or husband, son unmarried
daughter and widowed daughter) of an employee of the
University who meets with untimely death or gets permanent
disability during the service period may be appointed on any
non-teaching post for which he / she is suitable and fulfils the
minimum qualifications, without selection procedure.
WITH THE PROVISO THAT:
(i) The above facility will be given to only the dependents
of employees who have put in at least 3 years continuous
service in the University and only if there is no other
earning member in the family of the deceased.
(ii) If there are more than one member in the family of
deceased, desirous to get employment then the
appointing authority shall select one of such persons on
the basis of suitability particularly considering the
interest of his widow and minor members of the family
of the deceased.
(iii) Such appointment shall be made only against an existing
vacancy.”
6. The learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the
aforesaid provision indicates that a wife or husband, son, unmarried
daughter or widowed daughter is only included as a dependant of an
employee and that a daughter in law has not been included and,
therefore, the petitioner is not covered as a dependant under the said
3
scheme and, consequently, no appointment could be made in favour of
the petitioner.
7. Similar provision has been given in Rule 2(c) of the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1974). For facility,
the provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is quoted hereunder:-
“2(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;”
8. The said provision was considered by a division bench of the
Allahabad High Court in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi & another Vs.
Lalti Devi & another 2008 (1) A.W.C. 1035 in which it was held that
Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is not exhaustive and the said definition
is inclusive. Similar view was taken in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Rajendra Kumar & others 2000 (1) A.W.C. 155, Manoj Kumar
Saxena Vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly & others 2000 (2) ESC 967
and Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 2004 (2)
ESC 180. A division bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Lalti Devi (supra) further held that a daughter in law, who becomes
a member of a family of her husband, is included in the definition of
‘family’ of father in law and after his death, in the absence of any other
legal heir, she is entitled to claim compassionate appointment. The said
decision is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of
the case. The court finds that the clause (d) of Chapter XIII of the
Statutes of the University is not exhaustive in nature and the dependants
shown in the said clause in only inclusive. In the present case, the
Court finds that the petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased father in
law and was also being supported by the said deceased. In the opinion
4
of the Court, the petitioner, being dependant upon the deceased,
becomes a member of the family and was entitled to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition
is allowed. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to
consider and decide the application of the petitioner on merit in
accordance with law within three months from the date of the
production of the certified copy of this order.
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
Dated 18.05.2010
LSR
