The Allahabad High Court has quashed the order refusing to give appointment to the married daughter of the Executive Engineer of Electricity Corporation, Bareilly in the dependent quota of the deceased.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ankita Saxena.
By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the respondent whereby, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected on the ground that the applicant is a married daughter of the deceased employee.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the case is no more res integra as the Court has passed order in an identical matter bearing Writ on 29.03.2022.
Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the legal preposition discussed in the above order, but submitted that nothing has been disclosed by the petitioner as to what the son namely Prateek Chandra of the deceased was doing.
He submits that while in the family details his name is shown as a son aged about 30 years but in the application form of Ankita Saxena name of her brother had not been disclosed. Even the affidavits that have been filed are of the daughters and not of the son.
It has been averred in the petition that the deceased employee namely Smt Arti Saxena had executed a registered Will Deed dated 23.03.2020, whereby, she bestowed all her property and rights therein upon her daughters and the son since is living separately along with his wife has been excluded from any claim to which dependents are entitled and so there is no question of his filing either any affidavit or claiming any compassionate appointment in respect of his deceased mother. According to the petitioner, the son had virtually been disowned by the mother as per the Will executed by her.
“Having heard counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, the question of consideration of claim of compassionate appointment in my considered view being no more res integra in the light of judgment of this Court in Smt Vimla Seivastava v State of U.P. & Ors (2016) 1 ADJ 21 and Special Leave Petition No 22646 of 2016, State of U.P v Neha Srivastava that came to be upheld later on with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Court in Smt Raj Kumari Yadav v State of U.P & 3 Ors, Writ – A No 4908 of 2021 decided on 29.03.2022 would be fully attracted and applicable herein this case as well.
The claim of the petitioner since has been rejected solely on the ground of her being married daughter, the order dated 30.03.2022, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside”, the Court observed.
The Court said that, in so far as the question of consideration of compassionate appointment in the light of the fact that there is a living son of the deceased is concerned, this aspect is yet to be gone into by the respondents. The petitioner shall have liberty to present her case along with the copy of registered Will to be examined by the respondents and for this purpose, even the son of the deceased employee may be put to notice.
“In view of the above, the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent Executive Engineer rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned competent authority to decide afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order”, the Court ordered.