The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the daughter-in-law is treated as a daughter and falls under the scope of the term dependent in the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”); therefore, she can claim compassionate appointment.
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner's mother-in-law was appointed to the post of a ‘Coolie’ in the Respondent Department. The mother-in-law died while working in harness. Immediately thereafter, an application on grounds of compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner’s husband. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s husband also passed away.
Then, the Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment per the Rules of 1996.
But, the Respondent declined compassionate appointment to the Petitioner on the ground that a ‘daughter-in-law’ did not fall under the scope of the term ‘dependent’ as provided under the Rules of 1996.
Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the rejection letter.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Petitioner and her three minor children were dependent on the Petitioner's mother-in-law. Therefore, the Petitioner qualifies as a “dependent” under Rules of 1996. It was contended that all individuals who relied on the deceased government employees financially for their survival are collectively referred to as "dependent" in the Rules.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that the ‘daughter-in-law’ of the deceased Government Servant does not fall within the definition of a ‘dependent’ as envisaged in the Rules. Additionally, the Respondents are statutory authorities and are required to operate within the boundaries of the statute. Moreover, the application was filed after a gap of 1 year and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench relied upon the case of Smt. Pinki v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2012 1 WLC 431) and pointed out that- “while interpreting Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, we must interpret a ‘widowed daughter’, who is expressly included in the mandate of the said Rule, to mean a ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ as well. Meaning thereby, that a ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ shall also be covered under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. It was further held that as per the customs of the Indian Society, a daughter-in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is an integral member of the family who possess all the honour and responsibilities of the household.”
The decision of the Court:
The High Court stated that the Rules of 1996 is a beneficial legislation. Therefore, it should be interpreted harmoniously to read a ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ as part and parcel of ‘widowed daughter’. On the above-mentioned reasons, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the prayer for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Name: Sushila Devi v. State Of Rajasthan
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 521/2011
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr Sunil Samdaria and Ms Isha Belani
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr Rohit Choudhary Dy.G.C. with OIC Mr Vedprakash Sharma, Ex. En. NH, District Ajmer
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
