The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of dependents under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. whereby, petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a dependent of the deceased employee.

2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the petitioner - Navila, married daughter of the deceased government employee - Smt. Shanti who had passed away on 01.05.2018 applied for compassionate appointment under an order dated 07.07.2017 issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 29 -A(1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with the RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 2003, governing the entitlement and procedure relating to grant of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employees of the Co-operative Societies.

3. Condition No. 3 of the order dated 07.07.2017 excludes a married daughter from the definition of the dependent, which reads thus:

^^bu fu;eksa ds varxZr ^^vkfJr** ls rkRi;Z e`rd dkfeZd ds mRrjthoh ifr ;k iRuh] iq=] vfookfgr ;k fo/kok iq=h ls gksxk] tks e`rd dkfeZd ij mldh e`R;q ds le; iw.kZr;k vkfJr FksA**

4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the definition of the dependent is discriminatory inasmuch as it creates an embargo upon the appointment to a married daughter for no rationale. He argued that same deserves to be declared as violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied upon the full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Reference No. 1/2022 and other connected writ petitions), dated 13.09.2022 and submitted that condition No. 3 of the order dated 07.07.2017 also deserves to be declared arbitrary and the petitioner a married daughter of the deceased employee deserves to be declared entitled for grant of compassionate appointment.

6. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - State was not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how the definition of dependent given in the order dated 07.07.2017 can be justified on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the face of Full Bench judgments rendered in the case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra).

7. In case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra), Full Bench of this Court has held thus:

“Consequently, the reference is disposed of. The re-framed question in the reference, is answered as under:

The provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which excludes the married daughter from definition of depedent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word 'unmarried' from the definition of 'dependent', is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 also the word unmarried daughter/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughter/adopted daughter.

The judgment in the case of Sumer Kanwar (supra) and all other judgments, which have followed the judgment in the case of Sumer Kanwar (supra), upholding the denial of compassionate appointment to married daughter, are overruled.

As a consequence, it is directed that on account of striking down of the word 'unmarried' from the definition: (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein compassionate appointment has already been granted under the provisions as they stood before this order; (i