NEELAM DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of this case presented before us manifest as to how the State can still be apathetic towards the cause of gender justice despite a clear declaration of law by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of compassionate appointment.

(2.) Heard Shri Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents, Ms. Rani Singh holding brief of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra representing the U.P. Cooperative Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Shri Prashast Puri, learned counsel representing U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board.

(3.) The petitioner's father was employed as Assistant Branch Accountant with the respondent-Bank, who unfortunately died in harness and accordingly the petitioner being his daughter made an application seeking compassionate appointment. However, the compassionate appointment, as claimed by the petitioner, has been denied solely on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee. In terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 104 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations 1975'), it is only unmarried daughter who is eligible for being offered compassionate appointment and not the married daughter. The claim of the petitioner was, thus, rejected by means of an order dtd. 29/1/2021, which is under challenge before us in this writ petition. Apart from challenging the said order of rejection of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ striking down the word 'unmarried' occurring in Regulation 104 of Regulations 1975.