AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On account of call of boycott by the Advocates of the Bar Association, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. However, the petitioner, Amita Srivastava has appeared in person. Learned Standing Counsel is also present to assist the Court.
Petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 27.2.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Service Single No. 25491 of 2018 : Rizwana Begum vs. State of U.P. and others as under :
"Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 19.12.2017whereby application of petitioner for being appointed under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is rejected on the ground that petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased employee.
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 23.12.2015, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held that married daughter would also be covered within the definition of the family of the father and against the said order Special Leave to Appeal is filed bearing No. 22646/2016 is also dismissed on 23.07.2019.
Since the law is well settled with regard to the status of the married daughter that she was covered for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 19.12.2017cannot sustain and is set aside.
Writ petition is allowed.
Respondent No.3, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Pratapgarh is directed to consider and decide the application of petitioner on merits within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him."
Thereafter the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 1 which is order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the D.I.O.S., Pratapgarh rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing her appointment under Dying in Harness Rules for the reason being a married daughter her claim cannot be considered.
Since the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of Rizwana Begum (supra), therefore, the instant writ petition is being decided finally in terms of order dated 27.2.2020 passed in re: Rizwana Begum (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Respondent no. 3, D.I.O.S., Pratapgarh is directed to reconsider and decide the application of the petitioner on merit within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court.
No order as to costs.