SEEMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Kumar learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) The present petition challenges an order of 24/5/2021 pursuant to which the respondents have proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for being accorded appointment on compassionate grounds holding that a divorced daughter would not fall within the ambit of the 1974 Rules. The petitioner questions the correctness of that view taken firstly on the ground that under the 1974 Rules the expression "unmarried" as prefixed to the word "daughter" already stands struck down by the Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another; 2016(1) ADJ 21(DB) . According to learned counsel, the definition of family as employed in the 1974 Rules is thus liable to be read as encompassing daughters per se of the deceased government servant. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the decision of the Court in State of U.P. And Others v. Noopur Srivastava; 2019(2)ADJ 585 wherein it was specifically held that a divorced daughter would fall within the ambit of the 1974 Rules. Dealing with that question the Division Bench in Noopur Srivastava held thus:-

(3.) Sri Chandan Kumar learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, drew the attention of the Court to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka And Another v. V. Somyashree ;Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021 to contend that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is a binding authority in support of the proposition that a divorced daughter cannot claim benefits of compassionate appointment.