Recently in one of the case, the Allahabad High Court has held that rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment by treating a married daughter as outside the definition of “family” is legally unsustainable. Setting aside the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), Siddharth Nagar, the Court clarified that in view of the amended rules and the evolving judicial approach, a daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marriage.
The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while allowing the writ petition filed by Smt. Neetu @ Anita Devi.
Facts of the case
The petitioner’s father was working as a Head Master in a primary school in Siddharth Nagar and died in harness on 8 January 2010. He was survived by his wife and three married daughters. The petitioner, being the eldest daughter, applied for compassionate appointment along with notarised no-objection certificates from other family members.
Although the matter was reconsidered pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, the District Basic Education Officer, by order dated 03/06 August 2016, rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner, being a married daughter, did not fall within the definition of “family”.
Submissions and Court’s observations
Counsel for the petitioner argued that pursuant to the notification dated 12 November 2021, the word “unmarried” has been deleted from the U.P. Dependents of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, thereby bringing married daughters within the ambit of dependents. Reliance was also placed on judgments of coordinate Benches of the High Court as well as the Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which held that exclusion of married daughters is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution.
The Court, while accepting the submissions, reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a matter of automatic entitlement. Dependency on the deceased employee, financial condition of the claimant and other statutory requirements must be strictly examined.
Final directions
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar, for fresh consideration. The authority has been directed to decide the petitioner’s claim on merits, in accordance with law, after examining dependency and financial condition, affording an opportunity of hearing, and passing a reasoned and speaking order. The exercise is to be completed within two months, subject to there being no legal impediment.
Case: Smt. Neetu @ Anita Devi vs State of U.P. And Anr
Date of Order: 14.01.2026
See Order: Neetu @ Anita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Anr
