RUCHIKA TOMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as against the action of the respondent of not extending the benefits to the petitioner which was otherwise according to the petitioners was available to the dependents of freedom fighter under the various schemes floated by Government of India and State Government as well under the Act called as "The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993" on the premise that the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit because she happens to be granddaughter (daughters' daughter "Natini") of the deceased freedom fighter and would not be covered in the definitions of family.

(2.) The only argument which has been extended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner since being daughters daughter was a member of the family of deceased freedom fighter, irrespective of the fact that she got married to another person, that ought not deprive the petitioner from availing the benefit under the freedom fighter scheme on the premise that she is married granddaughter of the deceased freedom fighter, on the ground of gender discrimination.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also from the view point that when the grandson (i.e. son's son) of the freedom fighter is included under the definition of the dependants of the family of freedom fighter in that eventuality that granddaughter i.e. daughters daughter or son i.e. (Nati and Natini) as called in the normal dialect (Natini) would also be entitled for the benefit under the scheme. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference the ratio as propounded by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Isha Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (9) ADJ 331 though the question therein was with regards to the discrimination being created in relation to the daughter/son for the grant of compassionate appointment since being violative the Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench has held that the married daughter would fall within the definition of the family and she would be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under :-