Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi and Arun Bhansali, JJ.
Priyanka Shrimali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Reference No. 1/2022 Connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7343/2019, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15488/2021 & D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13697/2021
Decided On : 13-09-2022
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - MARRIED DAUGHTER - EXCLUSION FROM DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT - DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 TO 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RULE 2(C) OF THE RAJASTHAN COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT SERVANT RULES, 1996 - STRUCK DOWN - WORD 'UNMARRIED' DELETED FROM DEFINITION OF 'DEPENDENT' - CONSEQUENCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, married daughters of deceased government servants, challenged the validity of Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'), which excluded married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' and, consequently, from consideration for compassionate appointment. The petitioners argued that the exclusion was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the exclusion was based on the assumption that married daughters would invariably and in all cases cease to be dependent on the deceased government servant, which was not always the case. The Court also noted that the inclusion of married daughters in the definition would not dilute the requirement that the applicant be wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.
Issues: 1. Whether the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The object of according compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased government servant is to help the family to tide over the crisis faced on account of the death of the sole earner of the family. * The grant of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. * The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' was based on the assumption that married daughters would invariably and in all cases cease to be dependent on the deceased government servant, which was not always the case. * The inclusion of married daughters in the definition would not dilute the requirement that the applicant be wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.
Final Decision: The Court struck down the word 'unmarried' from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. The Court also directed that the word 'unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter' in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 be read as 'daughters/adopted daughter'. The Court further directed that the striking down of the word 'unmarried' would not affect any case where compassionate appointment had already been granted, would not provide a cause of action to any applicant, and would apply only to cases pending before the competent authority or where litigation was pending on the date of the order. The Court also directed that all other provisions of the Rules, except for the inclusion of married daughters in the definition of 'dependent', would continue to have full application.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - The present reference has come-up before this Larger Bench on account of issue referred by the Division Bench on 12.01.2022, inter alia, observing and referring the question as under:-
"In our opinion, the view of the Rajasthan High Court requires consideration by a larger Bench. The reference is therefore made to three members Bench on the following:
"Whether the view taken by the three Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Smt. Sumer Kanwar (supra), Smt. Vandana Sharma (supra) and Kshama Devi (supra) upholding the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, which excludes the married daughter from the definition of term 'dependent' is correct?"
2. After hearing the learned counsel appearing before this Bench, on 20.07.2022, the question referred was re-framed with the following observations:-
"After hearing the learned counsel appearing before us on previous dates and today, we are of the opinion that the question which has been referred to the Larger Bench requiring it to examine the correctness of the Division Bench judgments in the case of Smt. Sumer Kanwar, Smt. Vandana Sharma and Kshama Devi restricts the scope of consideration of the aspects which arise in the matter and rather puts this Larger Bench in an appellate position, which essentially is contrary to the jurisprudence in relation to reference of issues to a Larger Bench.
3. In view of the above, after hearing the learned counsel, the issue for consideration in the present reference is re-framed as under:
"Whether the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which excludes the married daughter from the definition of 'dependent', prior to its amendment vide Notification dated 28/10/2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India? In case the provision is discriminatory etc., the consequences thereof."
4. The above question was referred by the Division Bench, while hearing the case of Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBCW No. 14345/2021. Whereafter, in Savita Khatik v. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBCW No. 13697/2021 and Smt. Heena Sheikh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBCW No. 15488/2021 also directions were given for connecting the said petitions with the present reference.
5. Though in Kavita Gurjar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors.:DBCW No.7343/2019, challenge has been laid to the validity of Clause 2(c) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment of the Dependents of Deceased Employees Regulations, 2010, as the provisions are akin to the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'), the same was also ordered to be connected to the present reference.
6. The petitioner-Priyanka Shrimali filed the petition praying that the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 be declared unconstitutional to the extent it envisage that besides spouse and son only 'unmarried daughter' is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment as the petitioner, a married daughter of Smt. Hemlata Shrimali, a Government Servant, who died on 18.06.2021 sought compassionate appointment as the only child of the deceased, even after the marriage, she was living with her parents and now father only, however, on account of the provisions of the Rules of 1996, her candidature was rejected by order dated 01.09.2021, inter alia, indicating that married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996.
7. Similarly, the petitioner-Savita Khatik, on account of death of her mother, a Government servant, who died on 18.04.2021 and being the only child claimed herself to be wholly dependent on her mother, sought appointment under the Rules of 1996, however, as the definition of dependent excluded married daughter under the Rules of 1996, she has challenged the validity of the provision. The petiti
The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Marriage does not bring about a severance of relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to defin....
The exclusion of the married daughter from the definition of 'dependent' under the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of constitutional provisions. The purpose of compassionate appointmen....
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, affirming that marriage does not sever familial ties for employment eligibility.
Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment on par with sons, as marital status does not negate their familial ties or dependency.
Married daughters of deceased Government servants are entitled to be considered for appointment under the Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, if they fulfill the requirement....
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination; eligibility should be based on dependency, not marital status.
Point of Law : Exclusion of married daughter from ambit of family in the Note appended in sub clause (V) in Regulation 104 of the Regulations of 1975 is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory nature of excluding married daughters from consideration for compassionate appointment, violating Articles 14 & 15 of the Consti....
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
