Widowed Daughter Falls Within Definition Of Dependent Family', Allahabad HC Directs Compassionate Appointment Syed Nazarat Fatima 23 Nov 2024 6:33 PM
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajan Roy, and Om Prakash Shukla granted relief to a widowed daughter seeking appointment to the post her deceased father based on compassionate grounds. The Court held that even after marriage or widowhood, a woman would continue to be a daughter. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would for all legal and practical purposes be included in the definition of 'daughter', although widowed, on the date of her father's death.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, in a key judgement on the issue of compassionate appointments, has ruled that a woman, even after her marriage or widowhood, would continue to be a ‘daughter’. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would, for all legal and practical purposes, be included in the definition of ‘daughter’, the court observed.
With this ruling, the court granted relief to a widow seeking appointment to the post of her deceased father based on compassionate grounds. The court directed the competent authority, BSNL, to consider the claim of the ‘widowed daughter’ for compassionate appointment within two months.
A division bench comprising justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the judgement on November 22 while allowing a petition filed by Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan seeking directives for her compassionate appointment.
The petitioner sought appointment in the place of her deceased father on compassionate grounds. Her father used to serve in the post of T.O.A. (T.L.) in the office of General Manager (Telecom), and passed away on November 12, 2011.
It was conveyed to her by the Assistant General Manager (HR), Office of General Manger (Telecom) that as a widowed daughter, she could not find a place in the eligibility criteria and accordingly her application was rejected.
With this ruling, the court granted relief to a widow seeking appointment to the post of her deceased father based on compassionate grounds. The court directed the competent authority, BSNL, to consider the claim of the ‘widowed daughter’ for compassionate appointment within two months.
A division bench comprising justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the judgement on November 22 while allowing a petition filed by Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan seeking directives for her compassionate appointment.
The petitioner sought appointment in the place of her deceased father on compassionate grounds. Her father used to serve in the post of T.O.A. (T.L.) in the office of General Manager (Telecom), and passed away on November 12, 2011.
It was conveyed to her by the Assistant General Manager (HR), Office of General Manger (Telecom) that as a widowed daughter, she could not find a place in the eligibility criteria and accordingly her application was rejected.
The petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal perused the guidelines/schemes issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for compassionate appointment and held that as per the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment. It also held that the Tribunal could not perform executive functions and frame rules and guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed her application.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the high court.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that she would come under the definition of a family member because after her husband’s death, she had been dependent on her father. Moreover, being a widow did not deprive her of the status of being a daughter, the counsel stated.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel contended that as per the scheme for compassionate appointments, the widow was not a ‘dependent family member’ of the deceased employee. It was submitted that since the policy did not make an inclusion of such nature, the Tribunal or court could not interfere with the same.
The petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal perused the guidelines/schemes issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for compassionate appointment and held that as per the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment. It also held that the Tribunal could not perform executive functions and frame rules and guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed her application.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the high court.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that she would come under the definition of a family member because after her husband’s death, she had been dependent on her father. Moreover, being a widow did not deprive her of the status of being a daughter, the counsel stated.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel contended that as per the scheme for compassionate appointments, the widow was not a ‘dependent family member’ of the deceased employee. It was submitted that since the policy did not make an inclusion of such nature, the Tribunal or court could not interfere with the same.
In relation to whether a ‘widowed daughter’ could be included in the definition of ‘married daughter’, the court opined that there was nothing to negate that a widowed daughter could be considered within the definition. It was held that in case of a widowed daughter, the petitioner would have also lost her source of livelihood and therefore it could be inferred that she was dependent on her father unless there was evidence to prove that she had other sources of income.
Observing that ‘widowed daughter’ would be covered in the definition of ‘daughter’ contained in Note-I of the Guidelines dated October 9, 1998 if she was dependent upon her deceased father or mother on the date of his/her death, the court allowed the petition and directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment with in two months.
............................................................................................................................................................................
udgment: Ms. Savita Samvedi and Another vs. Union of India and Others
Equivalent Citations: 1996 SCC (2) 380, JT 1996 (1) 680
Bench: M.M. Punchhi, K. Venkataswami
Date of Judgment: January 30, 1996
Introduction:
This appeal raises a significant question of gender justice. The appellants are a retired railway employee (second appellant) and his married daughter (first appellant), who is also a railway employee. The second appellant sought the regularization of his allotted railway accommodation in favor of his married daughter after his retirement. The request was denied based on a Railway Board Circular that limited such regularization, citing conditions that the appellants claim are discriminatory.
Facts of the Case:
- The second appellant was allotted a railway quarter in Kishan Ganj, Delhi, while serving in the Indian Railways. He retired on December 31, 1993, and retained the accommodation until August 31, 1994.
- Before his retirement, the second appellant requested that his married daughter, the first appellant, be allowed to share the accommodation, as she was a railway employee and the only child available to care for him and his wife. This request was granted, but with the condition that she would not be eligible for regularization of the quarter after his retirement.
- The first appellant applied for regularization of the quarter, asserting that she, as a railway employee, had been maintaining her parents and was entitled to such regularization under the rules. However, her request was denied based on a Railway Board Circular dated August 11, 1992.
- The appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, but their plea was dismissed. They then moved the Supreme Court for relief.
Issue:
Whether the denial of regularization of railway accommodation to a married daughter under the Railway Board Circular of August 11, 1992, constitutes gender discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis:
Circular Provisions:
The Circular allowed regularization of railway accommodation for the son, unmarried daughter, or certain other dependents of retiring railway employees. A married daughter could only qualify if the retiring employee had no sons or if the sons were incapable of maintaining their parents. The daughter also had to be a railway employee to be eligible.Court's Observations:
- The Circular inherently discriminates against married daughters by placing them at a disadvantage compared to sons and unmarried daughters.
- A retiring employee should have the freedom to nominate any eligible child—irrespective of gender—for regularization, especially if the nominated child is willing and capable of maintaining the parents.
- The expectation of care and attention from children in old age should not be limited by gender-based rules.
Equality Under Article 14:
The Court emphasized that the Circular’s provisions violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. It struck down the gender bias inherent in the Circular, stating that marital status or gender cannot be grounds for denying regularization if all other eligibility criteria are met.Precedents:
The Court referred to earlier decisions by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, which held that similar railway policies suffered from gender discrimination and were unconstitutional.Key Principle:
The eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at par with an unmarried daughter or son, provided she is a railway employee and the retiring official nominates her for regularization.
Judgment:
- The appeal is allowed.
- The denial of regularization based on the gender and marital status of the first appellant is declared unconstitutional.
- The respondents (Union of India and Others) are directed to regularize the railway quarter in favor of the first appellant from the date of the second appellant’s retirement, subject to fulfillment of other conditions.
Citations: 1996 SCC (2) 380, JT 1996 (1) 680
There shall be no order as to costs.
This decision upholds gender equality and ensures that policies must not unfairly discriminate based on marital status or gender. It reinforces the principle that a daughter, whether married or unmarried, must have equal rights in such matters if she meets the required conditions.
Comments