Back
1996(1) Supreme 713
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan Mohan Punchhi and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Ms. Savita Samvedi & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2441 of 1996
Decided on 30-1-1996
Held : The retiring official s expectations in old age for care and attention and its measure from one of his children cannot be faulted, or his hopes dampened, by limiting his choice. That would be unfair and unreasonable. If he has only one married daughter, who is a railway employee, and none of his other children are, then his choice is and has to be limited to that railway employee married daughter. He should be in an unfettered position to nominate that daughter for regularisation of railway accommodation. It is only in the case of more than one children in Railway service that he may have to exercise a choice and we see no reason why the choice be not left with the retiring official s judgment on the point and be not respected by the railways authorities irrespective of the gender of the child. There is no occasion for the railways to be regulating or bludgeoning the choice in favour of the son when existing and able to maintain his parents. The Railway Ministry s Circular in that regard appears thus to us to be wholly unfair, gender biased and unreasonable, liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at par with an unmarried daughter (for she must have been once in that state), so as to claim the benefit of the earlier part of the Circular, refered to in its first paragraph , abovequated. (Part 7)
(ii) Railway Board Circular dated 11.8.1992-Eligibles of retiring employee who could claim regularisation - Important condition - He/she should be a railway employee-2nd appellant, retiring raliway employee-Had two major sons gainfully employed not in railways-Married daughter, a railway employee-She alone is eligible for regularisation of quarter. (Para 8)-Appeal allowed.
Held : The Circular shall be taken to have been read down and deemed to have been read in this manner from its initiation in favour of the married daughter as one of the eligibles, subject, amongst others, to the twin conditions that she is (i) a railway employee ; and (ii) the retiring official has exercised the choice in her favour for regularisation. It is so ordered. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
Punchhi, J.-Special leave granted.
2. This appeal voices a cry for gender justice.
3. The two appellants before us are a married daughter and father. The second appellant was in service of the Indian Railways. While in service, he was allotted quarter No. 30/3, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. He was due to retire on 31.12.1993. It is a different matter that he was permitted to retain the railway quarter for the maximum permissible period of eight months thereafter upto 31.8.1994. Much prior to retirement, the second appellant on 18.3.1993 requested the railway authorities concerned in permitting his married daughter, the first appellant to share the accommodation allotted to him on the basis that she was a railway employee at Delhi described as "Sr. S.O./T.A./D.K.Z.". He pointed out that he had two sons working out of Delhi, but neither of them was a railway employee, whereas his married daughter was one, and he needed her to look after him and his ailing wife. His request was granted favourably in-as-much as on 31.5.1993 permission was granted to the first appellant to share railway quarter of her father with effect from 16.3.1993 with the rider that she would not be entitled for regularisation of the railway quarter after the retirement of the second appellant. All the same, a day short of the retirement of the second appellant, the first appellant laid claim to the regularisation of the quarter contending that her brothers were not in a position to look after her parents, whereas she was, and would in future also look after her parents. The prayer was declined on 31.1.1994 on the ground that a married daughter was not eligible for regularisation of a railway quarter. The second appellant also made a representation to the Divisional and Superintending Engineer (Estates), Northern Railways, quoting instances where regularisation of railway accommodation had been made in favour of married daughters. The request was forwarded by the Divisional and Superintending Engineer to the General Manager, Northern Railways on 4.7.1994 pointing out that the first appellant was in Railway Service w.e.f. 25.2.1973, sharing accommodation with her father with effect from 16.3.1993 and that she was not drawing House Rent Allowance on her part with effect from that date. Her request was declined because of the Railway Circular on the subject. Both the appellants then took the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi but without any success. They have thus knocked the doors of this Court for appropriate relief.
4. The respondents in defence rely upon the Railway Board Circular dated 11.8.1992, whereunder regularisation is permitted on terms. The operative part thereof reads as follows :
"Reference Railway Ministry s letters No. E(G) 82 OR 1-23 dated 27.12.1982 and E(G) 85 QR 1-9 dated 15.1.1990 as clarified vide their letters No. E(G) 90 or 1-11 dt. 15.3.1991 and 1.7.1991, conveying instructions that when a Railway servant who is an allottee of Railway accommodation retires from service, his/her son, unmarried daughter, wife, husband or father as the case may be, may be allotted Railway accommodation on out of turn basis subject to fulfilment of prescribed condition.
The Ministry of Railways have reviewed the matter and in supersession of the instructions vide their letter No. E(G) 82 QR dt. 27.12.1982 have decided to extend the scope of this concession to the married daughter of a retiring official, in case he does not have any son or in case where the married daughter is the only person who is prepared to maintain the parent(s) and the sons are not in a position to do so (e.g. minor sons). This will be subject to the conditions already prescribed which are applicable to the other eligible wards seeking such concessions.
The decision communicated above will also be equally applicable in the case of death/medical unfitness."
5. As is obvious from the plain reading of the Circular, the married daughter of a re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
