Excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment violative of Article 14, 15 and 16; overrules judgements supporting exclusion: Rajasthan High Court
Excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment violative of Article 14, 15 and 16; overrules judgements supporting exclusion: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court passed a judgement on 13-09-2022 in the case of Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan Civil Reference No. 1/2022. The present petition challenges the position of law prior to the amendment of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which excludes the married daughter from the definition of ‘dependent’, a 3-judge-bench of Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi and Arun Bhansali, held that the provision of Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, which exclude the married daughter from the definition of dependent prior to its amendment 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 Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 also the word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter, shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In the present case, dependents/ married daughters seek compassionate appointment after the death of their respective parents who were in government services. The grievance arises from the denial by the authorities rendering these dependents ineligible for such an appointment. This is premised on the fact that the death of the parents occurred before the provision got amended. The amended provision includes married daughter in the term ‘dependents’ however prior to amendment such was not the case.
It is pertinent to note that the provision i.e., Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Service Rules, 1996 which defines ‘dependent’, stands amended w.e.f. 28-10-2021, wherein the married daughter has also been included in the definition, subject to certain conditions, however the aggrieved dependents were rejected to exercise the right under the amended provision. Thus, the present case was filed combining two other petitions involving the same grievance that forms the subject matter of the question of law.
The Court examined all previous judicial discussions while dealing with a similar issue and noted that apparently, the issue of exclusion of married daughter, only on account of her marital status in contradistinction to that of a married son and/or unmarried daughter, has not been examined so far on the touchstone of Articles 14 to 16.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court thus held that marriage by itself cannot be a disqualification and, therefore, the definition barring a married daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marriage is apparently arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16(2).
However, the Court remarked that there is no dispute as to which principles/parameters must be strictly followed by the Courts, while dealing with cases where the married daughter is included in definition. The Court concluded that the use of word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 depriving a married daughter from right of consideration for compassionate appointment, violates the equality clause and cannot be countenanced.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY CHANDANA SHEKAR