IMPORTANT POINT
A widowed daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment if she is dependent on her deceased father, as per the guidelines, which include her within the definition of 'daughter'.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Original Application No. 332/00/123/2017 filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of being widow daughter has been dismissed. In addition, the petitioner is also challenging the direction/instructions issued by the Assistant General Manager (Recruitment), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Telecom (East), U.P. Circle, Lucknow (respondent No.2) to the effect that widow daughter of the deceased employee cannot claim compassionate appointment.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a widowed daughter. Her father, namely, Om Prakash Bhakta, while working on the post of T.O.A. (T.L. in the office of General Manager (Telecom), died in harness on 12.11.2011, leaving behind wife (Smt. Saraswati Devi), four daughters including the petitioner and a son.

4. On 01.06.2016, the petitioner moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Along with the application, the petitioner had also submitted notary affidavits of her mother, brother and married sisters to the effect that if the petitioner is given appointment on compassionate ground, they will have no objection rather they have given their consent to give appointment to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she has also given a notary affidavit to the effect that she was married with Late Manish Dhawan who died on 27.07.2009 and after death of her husband, she was living with her father along with her minor son and further if she is given appointment on a suitable post, she will look after the heirs of her deceased father as per the best of her capability and further that she is Graduate and also has a Library Science Certificate.

5. Apparently, vide letter dated 13.10.2016, the Assistant General Manager (HR), Office of General Manger (Telecom), Allahabad intimated to the petitioner that as widowed daughter is not listed in the eligibility criteria of the guidelines circulated by its Circle Office, therefore, no action on her application for compassionate appointment is required to be taken.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an Original Application No. 332/00/123/2017 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the claim of the petitioner as also appraising the guidelines/schemes issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for compassionate appointment as well as judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 1026 of 2003 : U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi, has returned a finding that as per the guidelines, widowed daughter is not enumerated in the list of eligible persons and the Tribunal cannot enter into the shoes of the Executive in framing of rules and guidelines. In this backdrop, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application vide judgment and order dated 13.01.2023, which has led to filing of the present writ petition.

7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was two fold; firstly, as a widowed daughter she did not lose the status of being a 'daughter' of her father/parent and after death of her husband she was dependent upon her father for subsistence, as such, she would come under the definition of family. In this regard, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma : AIR 2020 SC 3717 and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi : (2011) SCC OnLine All 152. Secondly, petitioner’s case was never placed before the Circle High Power Committee as mandated by guidelines of the respondents.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order passed by