MAMTA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Intra-Court Appeal, the petitioner-appellant has assailed the order dtd. 7/12/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1833 of 2019, whereby her Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that she cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the judgment of the Full Bench rendered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 187 of 2017, Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v. Anjula Singh and others, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that the definition of family, as laid down in the 1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations, cannot exclude a married daughter, is not retrospective in effect. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the aforementioned Full Bench judgment of this Court is prospective in operation.

(2.) We are of the opinion that a judgment lays down the law by interpreting a provision, and it does not have any retrospective or prospective operation. Whenever the matter is considered by the authorities, they are duty bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court, and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) In this case, while the petitioner-appellant's case was being considered, initially the Chief Veterinary Officer, Nainital recommended for her appointment on compassionate ground, as her father had died in harness/public service. But, her case was returned and it is apparent from the record that her case was not considered, and the order that is impugned in this case reflects that her case was being returned to her.