The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'family' for the purpose of compassionate appointment in welfare schemes constitutes gender discrimination, violates fundamental rights, and is arbitrary, as dependency is a factual question unrelated to marital status.

1. This appeal emanates from an order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) by which the claim of the appellant, who is a married daughter of the deceased dealer, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground, has been rejected.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 27.10.2012, a fair price shop located at village panchayat Aariyawan, Development Block and Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi, was allotted to Smt. Badrun Nisha who was the mother of the appellant.

3. In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘1955 Act’), the UP Government through Notification dated 10.08.2016 notified the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (‘2016 Order’). Clause 7(2)(i) of the 2016 Order refers to a ‘person appointed’ to run a fair price shop and does not prescribe any eligibility criteria of marital status. The power to identify dependents is delegated to the State Government. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued G.O. No. 6 of 2019 on 05.08.2019 (‘G.O.’) governing the ‘identification, reservation, and appointment of fair price shops in rural areas. Paragraph V of G.O. describes the procedure for appointment of fair price shop under the dependent quota, after the death of the dealer. Paragraph IV of G.O. prescribes the essential qualifications and conditions for selection in rural areas. Sub Paragraph 10 of Paragraph IV, defines the expression ‘family’ which excludes ‘married daughter’.

4. On 04.03.2024, the mother of the appellant passed away leaving, the appellant as the sole earning member of the household responsible for her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired. The appellant even after her marriage continued to reside with her mother and sisters. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi (‘SDM’) by an order dated 05.03.2024 ordered attachment of the fair price shop on the demise of the dealer, namely the mother of the appellant. On 19.03.2024, the appellant filed an application before the SDM seeking allotment of the shop in her capacity as a dependent. The SDM, by an order dated 16.07.2024, rejected the application solely on the ground that the appellant is a married daughter and is not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as provided in G.O. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 07.01.2025 affirmed the order of the SDM and dismissed the appeal.

5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid orders dated 16.07.2024 and 07.01.2025 passed by the SDM and the Deputy Commissioner respectively, in a Writ Petition. The High Court by an order dated 05.03.2025 inter alia held that it is bound by the Division Bench decisions of the High Court in Smt. Kusumlata¹Special Appeal No.89 of 2022 and Saida Begum²2023:AHC-LKO:11230-DB and held that the appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment, as a dealer to run the fair price shop. The learned Single Judge however, noted the contrary view taken by the Bombay High Court³Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2014 (5) Mah LJ 543 and observed that the question raised is of seminal importance, as it concerns the rights of married daughters who are adversely affected solely on the ground of the marriage. The High Court, therefore, granted a certificate