IMPORTANT POINT
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 define and exclude from who constitutes a member of family when State has adopted a social welfare policy which is grounded on dependency.

ORDER

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.