The exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of dependant under the scheme for compassionate appointment was held to be illegal, and the court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation of beneficial provisions.

1. When her claim for compassionate appointment was declined on the ground that married daughter is not covered under the definition of dependant in Memo dated 05.10.1991, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Father of the petitioner namely, Umesh Chandra Mishra was employed as Amin in District Land Conservation Office, Ranchi. He died in harness on 24.06.2013. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 16.12.2016, and the Director, Land Conservation, Jharkhand forwarded claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules framed by the Government of Jharkhand on 01.12.2015 with necessary documents on 23.03.2016. On certain queries made from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, vide letter dated 09.01.2017, the Director, Land Conservation again forwarded the claim of the petitioner, which was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting held on 18.02.2017. The decision taken in this meeting has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ-petition.

3. Heard.

4. In view of the limited issue involved in the writ-petition which involves interpretation of scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, I am not inclined to invite an affidavit in opposition from the respondent State.

5. The plea taken by the Committee, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the married daughter does not fall in the category of "dependant", is de hors the constitutional provisions engrafted under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any discrimination on the ground of sex is prohibited under Article 15 and Article 16 provides that no citizen shall on the grounds of sex, religion, race, caste, descent, place of birth or residence be ineligible, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. Once it is found that a married son is not ineligible for compassionate appointment, attaching a disability to a daughter on the ground of her marriage for compassionate appointment is apparently illegal. Various High Courts have held that denial of compassionate appointment to a married daughter is illegal. One of the notable judgments has been rendered in "Krishnaveni v. Superintending Engineer, Kadamparai Electricity Generation Block, Coimbatore District" (2013) 8 MLJ 684. In the said case referring to the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court has held that if son and daughter both have been put under a duty to take care of their parents at the old age, on death of their parents they cannot be extended unequal treatment.

6. Under Clause 1(c) of Memo dated 05.10.1991 only the son, unmarried daughter and widow of the son have been declared as dependant of the deceased employee. This clause further provides that adopted son, son-in-law and cousin are not considered as dependants. This definition has been provided by an executive instruction. The Constitution is the paramount law of the land and all laws in force in the territory of India derive their source from the Constitution of India. Any law, leave alone executive instruction, contrary to provisions of the Constitution of India is ultra vires the Constitution.

7. Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of dependant under Clause 1(c) in Memo dated 05.10.1991, in the above facts, must be held illegal and ultra vires. Several cases of this nature have come to this Court wherein on the ground of married daughter not covered under the definition of "dependant", claim for compassionate appointment has been declined. Taking judicial notice of this situation, Clause 1(c) is held illegal, insofar as, exclusion of married daughter is concerned.

8. There is another aspect of this matter. Scheme for compassionate appointment has been formulated by the State, a welfare State, to provide succor to the family in distress on death of the bread earner. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception, however, the