Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 126125 (ALL)

ANUSHMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME CIVIL SECTT. LKO AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/2486/2025 · 2025-03-04

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12909 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2486 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anushma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Mishra,Hari Krishna Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner who is married and has sought compassionate appointment on the death of her brother Avinash Kumar who was working on in U.P. Police on the post of Constable and her application has been rejected by impugned order dated 08.01.2025 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is the married sister of late Avinash Kumar who was working in the U.P. Police Service and had moved an application for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974). The application of the petitioner was scrutinized from which the respondents came to know that the petitioner had got married on 08.10.2021 under the Chief Minister Group Marriage Scheme. 4. The petitioner had filled up her form for claim of the appointment on compassionate ground which has been produced by learned Standing Counsel. As per the said form, the petitioner had falsely declared that she was unmarried and such a declaration was made knowing fully well that the definition of family as occurring in the Rules of 1974, unmarried sister was included in the definition of family and consequently the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The respondents on coming to know of the fact that petitioner has been married have rejected her application solely on the ground that petitioner does not fall in the definition of family and consequently the benefit of Rules of 1974 would not be applicable on the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand has admitted that the petitioner was married to one Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sita Ram but it has been stated that marital life of the petitioner has not been successful and it has been stated that petitioner was fully dependent on her late brother at the time of his death and accordingly he submits that the petitioner was fully dependent on her late brother and consequently the petitioner deserves to get appointment on compassionate ground. 7. This Court has heard the rival contentions and perused the record. 8. The definition of family which is provided for in Rule 2(c) of Rules of 1974 is as under:- "Rule 2(c) - "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) Wife or husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters" 9. A perusal of the aforesaid rules clearly indicates that married sister is not included in the definition of family and consequently the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a married sister and is not included in the definition of family, no error has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner. A mere oral declaration has been made stating that the petitioner was dependent upon her late brother as learned counsel has fairly stated that neither any F.I.R. under Section 498A of I.P.C. nor under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was either moved by the petitioner claiming maintenance from her husband. An inquiry in this regard was also conducted by the respondents from where it was found that the petitioner is living peacefully with her husband and hence it cannot be said that she was dependent on her brother. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.3.2025/Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench