Read Time: 05 minutes
The Bench opined, "Yardstick, for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment in terms of the Rules is and should be dependency of the dependents on the deceased government servant and, therefore, their marital status only should not be an impediment for consideration on compassionate ground".
A Bench of Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, decided upon a matter referred to it by a Division Bench. The Bench overruled the denial of compassionate appointment to married daughter, as was held in Sumer Kanwar v. State of Raj. & Ors.: 2012(3) RLW 2546 (Raj). The question before the Court was,
“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.”
In the present matter, the petitioner, was a married daughter who sought a compassionate appointment as the only child of the deceased (Government Servant). The petitioner, however was living with her parents but on account of the provisions of the Rules of 1996, her candidature was rejected by an order indicating that a married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996.
The Court took note of all the judgements of the various High Courts on the validity of the exclusion. Interestingly, all the judgments held the exclusion to be unconstitutional. The Bench thus opined, "The very assumption that a married daughter, would invariably and in all cases, would not be dependent on the government servant is based on surmises, oblivious of the present day social realities and at the same time including a dependent married son, while leaving out a dependent married daughter from the definition, is clearly discriminative".
The Court further opined that, "The provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which excludes the married daughter from definition of dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated 28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word 'unmarried' from the definition of ‘dependent’, is struck down. Further, in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter".
Therefore, it was concluded that the marriage by itself cannot be a disqualification and, the use of word 'unmarried' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 depriving a married daughter from right of consideration for compassionate appointment was unconstitutional.
CASE TITLE: Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan
Please Login or Register
