Whether a Compassionate Appointee Need Employer’s Permission to Remarry? Allahabad HC

Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that in cases where a husband is employed on compassionate grounds on the death of his wife, the husband’s right to remarriage won’t go away.

Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal ruled that just because the husband was appointed on compassionate grounds, he cannot be forced to forfeit his fundamental right to remarriage, after the demise of his earlier spouse.

Remarriage, in such cases, will not lead to disqualification or warrant any disciplinary proceedings, observed the Court.

Background:

In the instant case, the husband(petitioner) was appointed on compassionate grounds after the demise of his wife.

The petitioner approached Basic Shiksha Adhikari ( his employer) and expressed his desire to marry the younger sister of his deceased wife.

Learned Standing counsel stated that as per the settled law, there was no requirement to get permission from the employer to get remarried.

Read Also

Observations the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

The Court looked into Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules and concluded that the Rules nowhere stipulate that a person(appointed on compassionate grounds) needs to seek permission from his employer to remarry.

However, the bench observed that the Rules provide that a person who was appointed on compassionate grounds, shall maintain the family members of the deceased government employee and if he/she refuses to maintain them then their service might get terminated.

The Court also relied on Smt. Santoshi vs State of UP & Ors where it was held that right to marry a person of their choice was an integral part of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Decision of the Court

Hon’ble Court concluded that as per law, there was no requirement to seek the permission of Basic Shiksha Adhikari by an employee appointed on compassionate grounds for the purpose of remarriage.

Therefore in the Court’s opinion, the petitioner had unnecessarily invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

Case Details:-

Title: Mohammed Haider vs State of UP and Another

Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 8797 of 2020

Date of Order: 11.11.2020

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

Counsel for Petitioner:- Surendra Prasad Mishra

Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C., Daya Ram Yadav

Download Law Trend App

Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles