स्कूलों में विवाहित पुत्री अनुकंपा नियुक्ति पाने की हकदार नहीः इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट
–विवाहित पुत्रियों अब अनुकंपा नियुक्ति पाने की हकदार नही होगी। इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की खंडपीठ ने सिंगल न्यायपीठ के उस निर्णय को पलट दिया है। जिसमें विद्यालयों में विवाहित पुत्री को परिवार का सदस्य मानते हुए अनुकंपा नियुक्ति पाने का हकदार माना गया था।
खंडपीठ ने कहा है कि विवाहिता पुत्री मृतक आश्रित कोटे में नियुक्ति पाने की हकदार नही है। राज्य सरकार ने एकल न्यायपीठ के निर्णय के विरूद्ध विशेष अपील दाखिल की थी।
अपील पर कार्यवाहक मुख्य न्यायाधीश एमएन भंडारी और जस्टिस विवेक अग्रवाल की पीठ ने सुनवाई करते हुए याचिकाकर्ता माधवी मिश्रा ने विवाहिता पुत्री के तौर पर विमला श्रीवास्तव केस के आधार पर मृतक आश्रित कोटे में नियुक्ति की मांग की। याची के पिता इंटर कॉलेज में प्रधानाचार्य पद पर कार्यरत थे। सेवाकाल में उनकी मृत्यु हो गई।
सिंगल बेंच ने याचिकाकर्ता को अनुकंपा नियुक्ति पर विचार करने का निर्देश दिया। इसका विरोध करते हुए राज्य सरकार अपर मुख्य स्थायी वकील सुभाष राठी का कहना था कि मृतक आश्रित विनियमावली 1995, साधारण खंड अधिनियम 1904 इंटरमीडिएट शिक्षा अधिनियम और 30 जुलाई 1992 के शासनादेश के तहत विधवा, पुत्र, अविवाहित या विधवा पुत्री को आश्रित कोटे में नियुक्ति पाने का हकदार माना गया है। 1974 कि मृतक आश्रित सेवा नियमावली सरकारी सेवकों के लिए है, यह शिक्षण संस्थाओं की नियुक्ति पर लागू नही होती।
सिंगल बेंच ने गलत तरीके से इसके आधार पर नियुक्ति का आदेश दिया है। वैसे भी सामान्य श्रेणी के पद रिक्त नही है। मृतक की विधवा पेंशन आ रही है। जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक शाहजंहापुर ने नियुक्ति से मना कर गलती नही की है। याचिकाकर्ता एडवोकेट का कहना था कि सरकार ने कल्याणकारी नीति अपनाई है। विमला श्रीवास्तव केस में कोर्ट ने पुत्र पुत्री में विवाहित होने के आधार पर भेद करने को असंवैधानिक करार दिया है। और नियमावली के अविवाहित शब्द को रद्द कर दिया है।
कोर्ट ने कहा कि आश्रित को नियुक्ति का नियम जीविकोपार्जन करने वाले कि अचनाक मौत से उत्पन्न आर्थिक संकट में मदद के लिए है। मान्यता प्राप्त एडेड कॉलेजों के आश्रित कोटे में नियुक्ति की अलग नियमावली है तो सरकारी सेवकों की 1994 की नियमावली इसमें लागू नही होगी।
Court No. – 29Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 223 of 2021
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And AnotherRespondent :- Madhavi Mishra And 2 OthersCounsel for Appellant :- Subhash RathiCounsel for Respondent :-
Seemant SinghHon’ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief JusticeHon’ble Vivek Agarwal,J.Ms. Subhash Rathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State andSri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.This special appeal has been filed by the State being aggrievedof order dated 09.08.2021 passed by learned Single Judge inWrit-A No.7430 of 2021, whereby learned Single Judge hasallowed the writ petition in regard to the claim of a marrieddaughter i.e. petitioner for grant of compassionate appointmentupon death of her father.It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that deceasedwas an employee of Inter College and was working as AdhocPrincipal. While in service he died on 25.05.2019. It issubmitted that case of an employee of a Inter College isgoverned by the Provisions contained in ‘Mritak AashritVinayam 101, 103 and 107 as amended on 02.02.1995’, whichamended the regulation vide Notification No.300/15-7-2(1)/90,Shiksha Anubhag-7 dated 02.02.1995 in terms of the provisionscontained in Section 21(1) of Uttar Pradesh Sadharan KhandAdhiniyam, 1904 read with Section 9(2) of IntermediateShiksha Adhiniyam, 1921 in terms of the GovernmentNotification issued by the Governor bearing No. 4001/15-7-2-(1)/90, dated 30.07.1992 as amended vide GovernmentNotification No.A-1-5375/15/1692-58 dated 24.11.1959,wherein, as per the explanation below Regulation 103, only aWWW.LAWTREND.IN widow or widower, son, unmarried or widow daughter isentitled to grant of compassionate appointment. It is submittedthat the learned Single Judge has wrongly invoked theprovisions of Rule 2(C)(III) of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment ofDependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules,1974 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1974’).Learned Standing Counsel also submits that there is no vacantpost available for general category candidate and accordinglyorder dated 21.05.2021 as passed by District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, cannot be faulted with when he has categorically mentioned that besides non-availability of post,petitioner being not a dependent in terms of the provisions ofthe regulations, therefore, there was no justification in allowingthe writ petition. It is further submitted that widow of the deceased is entitled to family pension. Thus, there is no question of grant of compassionate appointment .Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents placesreliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad HighCourt in case of Vimla Srivastava and Others vs. State of U.P.and Another, 2016 (1) ADJ 21, wherein it is held that whenState has adopted Social Welfare Policy, which was grounded on dependency, then keeping away daughters from ambit of expression “Family” under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1947, on ground of marriage would constitute impermissible discrimination and same is in violation of Articles 14 and 15 ofthe Constitution, therefore, words ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(C)(III)of Rules was struck down and petitions were allowed. In para 3 of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Courtin case of Vimla Srivastava (supra), it is held that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial support to such a family by stipulating that upon theWWW.LAWTREND.IN death of its wage earner while in harness as a Government Servant, another member of the family would be granted appointment. It held that compassionate appointment is not areservation of a post in public employment, but is in the nature of an enabling provision under which a member of the family ofa deceased Government Servant, who has died while in harness,can seek appointment based on financial dependency and need.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is no more indispute that the law in regard to grant of compassion ateappointment is dependent on three criteria, namely, eligibility prescribed under the relevant Rules, death of a bread earner inharness and appointment based on financial dependency andneed. Rules of 1974 provides that it shall regulate the recruitment of the dependents of government servants dying-in-harness. Rule 3 provides that these Rules shall apply to recruitment of dependents of the deceased government servantsto public services of post in connection with the affair of State of U.P., except services and posts which are within the purviewof Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. But Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position toanswer that when there is a specific regulation dealing with the subject of grant of compassionate appointment in a recognized aided institution for an educational post, then how the provisions of the Rules of 1974 will apply?The regulations specifically provide for definition of family andin the definition of family, married daughter has not beenincluded.This issue of eligibility of a married daughter has been recentlysettled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Director ofTreasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree, 2021SCC OnLine SC 704 decided on 10.09.2021, wherein it is heldWWW.LAWTREND.IN
