The Single Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Sameer Jain in the case of Sushila Devi v. State Of Rajasthan had ordered the Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as Daughter-in-Law falls within the ambit of the term ‘dependent’.
Background of the Case
The petitioner is the daughter in law of the deceased who was appointed on the post of a ‘Coolie’ in the Respondent-Department. The deceased (Mother in Law) died while working in harness with the said department. The petitioner’s husband-Sh. Sawar Lal also died on 14.03.2008; leaving the petitioner widowed, with a responsibility of looking after herself as well as her three minor children.
Therefore, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment which was denied by the Respondent on account of the fact that a ‘daughter-in-law’ did not fall within the ambit of the term ‘dependent’ as provided under the Rules of 1996.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel appearing on the behalf of the petitioner submitted that impugned actions of the respondents are contrary to the spirit of granting compassionate appointments under the Rules of 1996. The petitioner fell within the category of a ‘dependent’ as provided in the Rules of 1996. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Submission of the Respondent
The Respondent Counsel humbly submitted that a ‘daughter-in-law’ of the deceased-Government Servant does not fall within the definition of a ‘dependent’ as envisaged under Rule 2(c) of the said Rules. There is no express inclusion of a ‘daughter-in-law’ within the stipulations of the said rules, the respondents cannot consider the application of the petitioner for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court considered the arguments advanced given by both the parties and observed that the petitioner’s mother-in-law, who was appointed in the Respondent-Department, died in harness on 15.07.2007. The deceased was survived by her son i.e. the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner herself and their three minor children. Moreover, the deceased’s entire family was financially dependent upon her for their survival.
The Court also perused the cases submitted by the petitioner and affirmed that the respective Case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Considering all the present facts and cases, the Court held that “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.”
Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of 30 days and to grant her due benefits in accordance with law from the due date.
Case Details
Case:- CW-521/2011
Petitioner:- Sushila Devi
Respondent:- State Of Rajasthan
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr. Sunil Samdaria
Counsel for the Respondent – Mr. Rohit Choudhary
Judge: Justice Sameer Jain
Picture Source :
