Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Savita Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
(1 of 3) [CW-13697/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13697/2021
Savita Khatik D/o Rameshwar Lal Khatik, Aged About 26 Years,
B/c Khatik, Resident Of Khatik Mohalla, Lasani, District
Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Secretary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
4. The District Education Officer (Elementary), Rajsamand
(Raj.).
5. The Block Education Officer (Elementary), Panchayat
Samiti Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).
6. Principal/peeo, Government Higher Secondary School,
Lasani, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh.
For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
03/12/2021
The petitioner is a married daughter of a deceased
Government servant who died in harness. Her consideration for
compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that
a married daughter is not included in the definition of
(2 of 3) [CW-13697/2021]
"dependents" under the relevant rule for compassionate
appointment. The petitioner has therefore challenged the rule as
being discriminatory since the rule recognizes a married son as
dependent.
We are conscious that a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Sumer Kanwar (Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan and
others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4716/2010, decided on
12.08.2011) held that such Rule is not unconstitutional. This
decision was followed in subsequent Division Bench judgment in
the case of Kshama Devi and another vs. State of Rajasthan
(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14393/2019, decided on
27.08.2019).
However, we note that there are several other High Courts in
the country which have taken a different view. The Division Bench
of Allahabad High Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava and
others vs. State of U.P and others, MANU/UP/2275/2015
has taken a contrary view. The Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High
Court in the case of Sarojni Bhoi vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and others, MANU/CG/0273/2015 has also held that such a
Rule is violative of equality clause. Full Bench of Calcutta High
Court in the case of State of W.B. and others vs. Purnima Das
and others, MANU/WB/0829/2017 have also taken similar
view. A full bench of Uttrakhand High Court in the case of Udham
Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. And another vs.
Anjula Singh and others has expressed similar opinion. Bombay
High Court in the case of Kulkarni, 2013 SCC Online
BOM1549(DB) has also followed the same trend. Single Judge of
Tripura High Court in the case of Smt. Debashri Chakraborty
(3 of 3) [CW-13697/2021]
vs. The State of Tripura and others, (WP(C)No. 562/2019,
decided on 18th December, 2019) has also taken such a view.
In our opinion, the decisions of our Court noted above
require consideration. Before making a formal reference we would
hear the opponents.
Issue notice, returnable on 14th January, 2022.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
126-jayesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
