SMT. BEENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 52265 of 2017

Smt. Beena
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              :    Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :    C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

(SN.83)

                 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Pt. Sita Ram Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Premshankar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking a direction
for compassionate appointment upon the death of her mother while she
was in service.

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner,
namely Smt. Krishna Devi, was appointed as peon in the office of
respondent no.5. While in service, she has died on 16.10.2016.
Thereupon, the petitioner has moved an application for compassionate
appointment, which was rejected by order dated 19.12.2016, wherein it
has been observed that there is no rule or Government order is available
to grant the compassionate appointment to a married daughter.
Thereupon, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein
relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-
A No. 21437 of 2016 (Km. Ruby Mausoof vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.),
dated 11.05.2016, wherein it has been held that the married daughters are
also entitled for compassionate appointment despite the rules there being
contrary.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has resisted the claim of the
petitioner by submitting that there is no express rule or the Government
                                                      WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                              2


order available which permits the married daughter to claim the
compassionate appointment upon death of her parents. In Km. Ruby
Mausoof (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as
under:

    "....

    .....

    It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the view taken by
    the third respondent is contrary to the laid down by this Court
    in case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. and another,
    2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB). The Division Bench has considered the
    constitutional validity of the word "unmarried" doming under
    definition of the family. The Court has declared the word
    "unmarried" Rule 2(C)(iii) of the Rules 1974 as ultra vires and
    unconstitutional. Consequently, the word "unmarried" has
    been struck down from the definition of the 'family'.

    In view of the above, the Court has found that the married
    daughter is entitled for appointment of compassionate ground.

    However, learned Single Juge in the case of Smt. Uma Vs.
    State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 10906 of 2016
    dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the devision
    Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (Supra) has failed to consider
    the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Km. Shehnaj Begum
    Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2013) Law Suit (All) 754

    Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Smt.
    Uma(Supra) a Special Appeal No. 268 of 2016 was filed. The
    Division Bench in the said special appeal considered the
    judgment of the Full Bench in Km. Shehnaj Begum(Supra)
    also and found that the issue decided in Smt. Vimla
    Srivastava(Supra) was not raised before the Court in Km.
    Shehnaj Begum case, the relevant part of the order reads as
    under:-
                                                 WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                          3


"It is true that under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying-In-Harness Rules
1974, unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters,
widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law have been
shown within the definition of "Family". This is accepted
position that married daughter has not been defined in the
definition of "Family".

Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shehnaj Begum
(Supra) has strictly construed the definition of "Family"
provided in Rule 2(c) of 1974 Rules and has proceeded to
answer the reference that has been so made by the Division
Bench of this Court.

Only issue before Full Bench was that the word "include" in
the definition clause has been used by the Rules framer in the
sense of "means" or same is exhaustive. In the said context
answer that has been given by Full Bench is that definition of
the family in Rule 2(c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying-In-Harness Rules 1974 is
exhaustive. It is, however, always open to the appropriate
government to amend the definition of family so as to include
any other relations of the deceased government servant which
it thinks fit to be included for fulfilment of purpose and object
of the Rules.

Once validity of the provision as contained under Rule 2(c) of
Rules 1974 has been tested on the parameter that the said
provision is discriminatory on the basis of sex and is violative
of Article 14 and 15 of Constitution, and subsequent to the
same, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla
Srivastava (Supra) has tested the said provision of Rule 2(c) of
Rules 1974 based on gender discrimination and has held the
exclusion of married daughter from the definition of family
being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. Specific mention has been made that in case married
daughter has to be excluded then the said provision in question
                                                 WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                          4


on its face value is based on gender discrimination. In view of
this, once such is the factual situation and in para-27 of the
judgment dated 04.12.2015, it has been held that exclusion of
married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in
Rule 2(c) of the Dying-In-Harness Rules is illegal and
unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 15 of the
Constitution and the Division Bench has struck down the word
"unmarried" in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

Consequently, judgment dated 04.12.2015 passed in the case of
Vimla Srivastava (Supra), on subsequent occasion by
coordinate bench of this Court has to be followed by us based
on judicial discipline, and learned Standing counsel has
informed us that said judgement is holding the field till today
as validity of the same has not been challenged before Apex
Court and there is no interim order operating, we proceed to
pass order directing therein that in case appellant-petitioner
applies for consideration of her claim for grant of
compassionate appointment, then same be examined and her
claim should not be non-suited on the ground that she is
married daughter of deceased, however at the point of time of
consideration of her claim, dependency should also be looked
into as to whether she was really dependant or it is a pretence
to get compassionate appointment, apart from other relevant
considerations for grant of compassionate appointment
including the fact of status of her husband preferably within
three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of
the order passed by this Court."

In view of the above, the order passed by learned Single Judge
is set aside and present special appeal is allowed."
In view of the above, now the issue stand clarified and there is
no conflicting judgment.

Since no factual controversy is involved in the matter, calling a
response from the respondents, would not serve any purpose.
Therefore, with the consent of parties the matter is taken on
                                                WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                           5


Board for final disposal

For the reason stated herein above, I find that the order of the
third respondent is contrary to the law laid down by this Court.

It is a trite law that a judgment laid down by the High Court is
binding on all the Courts, Tribunals and outhorities
irrespective of the fact that they are party in the case or not.
This power of the High Court is akin to the power of the
Supreme Court under Article 141 Constitution of India. The
reference may be to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.
East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta and another v.
Collector of Customs, calcutta AIR 1962 SC 1893.

In the case of Dr. Rohit Gupta V. Principal, S.N. Medical
College, Agra and others 1995 1 UPLBEC 365 the Division
Bench of this Court has considered the issue whether the law
laid down by this Court is binding on the authorities or the
parties who were not party in the writ petition. This Court held
that it is a settled legal position that the judgment of this
Court are binding on all the authorities automatically and the
law laid down by this Court must be faithfully complied with.
The authorities cannot take stand that they comly the
judgment of the Court only when they receive the instructions
from State Government.

The Court had issued a warning that in future this Court will
not tolerate such type of stand taken by the authorities. The
relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-

(5)"......... The judgments of this court are binding on all
authorities automatically and it is not that they become finding
only when approved by the State Govt. It is surprising that the
Principal of a Medical College has taken a wholly illegal and
untenable stand in an-nexure-7 to the writ petition. We were
inclined to issue contempt notice but we refrained ourseleves
from doing so as we feel that he has issued the letter which is
annexure-7 in ignorance of the legal position but we will grant
                                                       WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                               6


     not further indulgence to him in future. The Principal of S. N.
     Medical College, Agra and all other authorities in the State
     must know that orders of this court are binding on them
     automatically and must be faithfully and punctually complied
     with, and such authorities cannot take a stand that they will
     comply with the judgment of this court only when they receive
     some communication from the State Govt. In future this court
     will not tolerate this kind of attitude from any authority and all
     authorities are cautioned against taking up such attitude in
     respect of the orders or judgments of this Court." (Emphasis
     supplied)

     Accordingly, I find that the impugned order dated 4.10.2015
     passed by the third respondent needs to be set aside.
     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
     the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, impugned order
     dated 4.10.2015 passed by third respondent is set aside. The
     matter is remitted to third respondent to consider the matter
     afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court in Smt.
     Vimla Srivastava(Supra). The said exercise shall be
     undertaken by the third respondent within two months from the
     date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall
     submit a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the
     order in Smt. Vimla Srivastava(Supra) before third
     respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of a
     certified copy of this order.

     The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. "

5. Since, Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another : 2016 (1)
ADJ 21 (DB) has been relied upon by the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
wherein it has been categorically held any rule which permits only
unmarried daughters to claim compassionate appointment, was held to be
unconstitutional, the same being discriminatory in nature. Relying upon
the same and by further relying upon the judgments of Dr. Rohit Gupta
vs. Principal, S.N. Medical College, Agra and Others : 1995 1 UPLBEC
365, wherein the directions have been issued that any legal position which
                                                                                           WRIA No. 52265 of 2017
                                                                   7


                                    is settled by the judgment of this Court is binding on all Authorities in the
                                    State. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law as has been noted
                                    hereinabove in the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court, the
                                    married daughters are also entitled to claim compassionate appointment.

                                    6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the order dated
                                    19.12.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the
                                    ground that she is a married daughter is hereby quashed.

                                    7. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
                                    afresh in accordance with law ignoring the provision, if any, which debars
                                    the married daughters to claim compassionate appointment. The
                                    necessary decision in this regard shall be taken within three months from
                                    today after giving due opportunity of hearing and supplying the relevant
                                    documents to the petitioner, if any, required.



                                                                                      (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Shubham Arya




Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad