Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of dependents for compassionate appointment is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Judgment

Reportable Reserved on 16/01/2024

Pronounced 25/01/2024

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction, the communication dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

That the respondents may be held entitled for appointment on any suitable post in view of the Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 .

That the respondents may further be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on any suitable post as per her qualification in view of the Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 .

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the married daughter of Shri Keshav Kant Trivedi (deceased government servant). Shri Keshav Kant Trivedi died on 20.01.2021 due to Covid-19 while he was in service on the post of Executive Engineer in the Office of Water Shed Cell cum Data Center, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur (respondent department).

2.1. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’) before the respondent no.5-Superintending Engineer, whereupon the respondent no.5 forwarded the said application vide communication dated 02.03.2021 to the respondent no.3-Commissioner with all relevant documents. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 again referred the matter to the respondent no.3 but the respondent no.3 did not take any action in the matter.

2.2 Subsequently, the respondent no.4-The Additional Director communicated to the respondent no.5 vide impugned letter dated 31.03.2022, that in the present case, as per the definition of ‘dependent’ contained under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 as further amended in the 2021, the deceased government servant was having one son- Punit Trivedi, and therefore, on that count, the petitioner cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased government servant.

2.3 The petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2022 and also served a notice dated 01.11.2022, but the respondents did nothing in that regard. Thus, being aggrieved of the impugned communication/letter dated 31.03.2022, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exclusion of the married daughter from the definition of ‘dependent’ prior to amendment of the Rules of 1996 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India . In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors (Civil Reference No. 1/2022, & other connected matters decided on 13.09.2022).

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased government servant and applied for the compassionate appointment within the prescribed time limit, but the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for such appointment only for the reason that the son-Punit Trivedi of the deceased government servant is fully eligible for compassionate appointment, which is not justified, as the married daughter is completely eligible for appointment in question, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Larger Bench in the case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra).

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner posses