SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Roopali Rai - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 17079 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Shukla.
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Mr. Varun Singh.

Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination; eligibility should be based on dependency, not marital status.

Headnote:(A) Coal India Limited Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1981 - Compassionate appointment - The petitioner, a married daughter of a deceased employee, sought compassionate appointment which was denied based on the Office Memorandum stating married daughters are ineligible. The court found this exclusion discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 9, 10, 15, 20, 32)

(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that dependency, not marital status, should determine eligibility for compassionate appointment, noting that discrimination based on gender and marital status is unconstitutional. (Paras 17, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's father, employed by Coal India Limited, died in harness. The petitioner, along with her disabled husband, claimed dependency on her deceased father’s income. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected solely based on her marital status.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the rejection order, mandating reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, emphasizing the need to adhere to constitutional principles of equality.

Issues: The main issue was whether a married daughter can be considered for compassionate appointment despite the existing policy excluding her based on marital status.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment is unconstitutional and that dependency should be the criterion for eligibility.

Result: Writ petition allowed; order rejecting the application quashed, and a mandamus issued for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment post father's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointment contested. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's analysis on discrimination against married daughters. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. judicial precedents support equality for married daughters. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. right to be considered for compassionate appointment based on dependency. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed. (Para 32)
7. mandamus issued to consider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned an order of the Staff Officer (Personnel), Integrated Water Supply System (IWSS), Northern Coalfields Limited, Khadia Project, District Sonebhadra dated 08.07.2022, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. There are certain ancillary directions also sought against the respondents.

2. The petitioner's father, the late Akhilesh Rai, was employed as a Subordinate Engineer with the Northern Coalfields Limited, IWSS, Khadia Project, District Sonebhadra. The Northern Coalfields Limited is a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited, a Maharatna Company, fully owned by the Government of India. Akhilesh Rai died in harness on 21.04.2022. The deceased and his family comprised a total of four souls. The deceased himself, his widow, Smt. Nirmala Rai, a son, named Pradeep Rai and a daughter, Roopali Rai, the petitioner. Roopali Rai was married apparently during the deceased's lifetime. The petitioner says that her brother is far removed from the family of the deceased and domiciled in the United States of America. He has given a no objection certificate about the petitioner being appointed on compassionate grounds in her father's stead. The petitioner says that she is a disabled married daughter of the deceased employee and her husband is also a disabled man. Both live with her parents at their home and were entirely dependent upon the late Akhilesh Rai for sustenance.

3. The petitioner has earned her degrees of B.A., B.Ed. and P.G.D.C.A. She is eligible for suitable government employ in the respondents' establishment. She applied for compassionate appointment, invoking the provisions of the Office Memorandum of the Coal India Limited dated 13.03.1981 and says that she is entitled to be considered in terms of the policy embodied in that memorandum. She says that along with her mother, the two were entirely dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his demise, and, after his death in harness, the petitioner is on the verge of starvation. The petitioner's mother applied before the General Manager, respondent No.4, seeking employment on compassionate grounds for her daughter, the petitioner, on 04.06.2022. The petitioner's mother said there that her son is domiciled in U.S.A., whereas the daughter and the son-in-law are disabled, both of whom stay with her. It was her case that each of these three members of the deceased's family were entirely dependent upon the deceased employee's income for their sustenance. It is on these grounds, the petitioner's mother requested for a compassionate appointment for the petitioner.

4. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the Staff Officer (Personnel), IWSS, Khadia Project, District Sonebhadra vide order dated 08.07.2022.

5. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner.

6. Notice of motion was issued on 20.10.2022 and in course of time, parties exchanged affidavits. Two supplementary affidavits have been filed in support of the petition and a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by respondent No.5, the Staff Officer (Personnel), answering the affidavit as well as two supplementaries. A rejoinder has also been put in. Parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing on 19.11.2024, which pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top