Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priyanka Shrimali vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14345/2021
Priyanka Shrimali D/o Shr Bhagwati Lal Shrimali W/o Shri Dhruv
Shrimali, Aged About 34 Years, 25-A, Bapunagar, Kanchan
Kutiya, Badgaon, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary,
Rajsamand.
4. Chief Block Education Officer Cum Edication, Khamnore,
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s), : Mr. Vinay Jain,
through V.C. Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s), : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
through V.C.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
12/01/2022
The petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased
Government employee, who died in harness. A request for grant
of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground
that the married daughter is not included in the definition of term
'dependents' under the scheme for grant of compassionate
appointment. The petitioner has therefore challenged the validity
of Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of
Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996
(2 of 4) [CW-14345/2021]
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the
petitioner, exclusion of a married daughter when a married son is
included, from the purview of consideration for grant of
compassionate appointment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
The said rule had come up for consideration before the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sumer Kanwar
vs. State of Rajasthan and others [2012(1) WLC (Raj.) 99]
wherein the validity of the rule was upheld. This was reiterated in
the case of Smt. Vandana Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and
others [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13087/2017 decided on
14.10.2017]. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kshama Devi and another vs. State of Rajasthan and
another [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14393/2019 decided on
27.08.2019] followed the decision in the case of Smt. Sumer
Kanwar (supra) and rejected the challenge to the rule.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another [Writ
(C) No.60881/2015 decided on 04.12.2015] has taken a
contrary view and held that such rule which excludes a married
daughter for consideration for compassionate appointment would
be discriminatory. The learned Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High
Court, Bilaspur in the case of Smt. Sarojni Bhoi vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others [Writ Petition (S) No.296/2014
decided on 30.11.2015] has taken a similar view. The Full
Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of The State of West
Bengal and others vs. Purnima Das and others [C.A.N.
12495/2014 in F.M.A. No.1277/2016 decided on
13.09.2017] has also taken the same view. Yet another Full
(3 of 4) [CW-14345/2021]
Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Udham Singh
Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another vs. Anjula
Singh and others [Special Appeal No.187/2017 decided on
27.03.2019] has expressed similar opinion. The Bombay High
Court in the case of Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari
Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) vs. The Superintending Engineer,
Pune Irrigation Project Circle and Another [2013 SCC online
BOM 1549 (DB)] has followed the same trend. The learned
Single Judge of Tripura High Court in the case of Smt. Debashri
Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura and others [W.P. (C)
No.562/2019 decided on 18.12.2019] has taken a similar
view. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Meenakshi Dubey vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut
Vitran Co. Ltd. and others [W.A. No.756/2019 decided on
02.03.2020] has also adopted the same view. The learned
Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt.
Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. The State of Karnataka and
others [Writ Petition No.17788/2018 (S-RES) decided on
15.12.2020] has also taken the similar view. In an appeal filed
by the State of Karnataka against another judgment in the case of
The State of Karnataka and others vs. C.N. Apporva Shree
and another [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s).20166/2021, decided on 17.12.2021] the Supreme
Court while dismissing the appeal has specifically approved the
view of the Court in the case of Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik
(supra) in the following terms:
"We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) and have analyzed the impugned
judgment. We give our full imprimatur to the
reasoning of the High Court, more so, as even the rule
(4 of 4) [CW-14345/2021]
in question relied upon by the petitioner to deny a
married daughter a job on compassionate grounds
while permitting it to a married son, has been quashed
in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani v. State of Karnataka -
(2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR Online 2020 Kar 2303].
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Pending application stands disposed of."
It can thus be seen that the consistent view expressed by
various High Courts through Single Bench, Division Bench and Full
Bench has been that the rule or proviso under the scheme which
excludes a married daughter while including a married son within
the definition of 'dependent' of deceased government servant, is
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In one instance, the view of the High Court
(Karnataka High Court) has been specifically approved by the
Supreme Court. We may also note that the State of Rajasthan
itself has now amended the rule in question and has specifically
included a married daughter within the definition of term
'dependent'.
In our opinion, the view of the Rajasthan High Court requires
reconsideration by a larger Bench. The reference is therefore
made to three members Bench on the following question:
"Whether the view taken by the three Division Benches
of this Court in the cases of Smt. Sumer Kanwar (supra),
Smt. Vandana Sharma (supra) and Kshama Devi (supra)
upholding the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, which excludes
the married daughter from the definition of term 'dependent'
is correct?"
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
59-MohitTak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
