Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Priyanka vs State And Ors on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8840/2015
Priyanka W/o Shri Jitendra Sanadhya, aged about 31 years, R/o
Shiv Colony, Kasod Darwada, Near Dashara Ground, Nimbahera,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Energy, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Chairman,
Vidhyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road, Ajmer.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Ajmer Vidhut Vitran Nigam
Limited, Chittorgarh.
4. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Nimbahera.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Choudhary
Mr. Mukesh Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
20/09/2022
The present writ petition has been filed by the married
daughter of the deceased Government Servant seeking
compassionate appointment in the Department. It is pleaded in
the writ petition that petitioner has been denied compassionate
appointment only on the ground of her being married. Though,
she is fulfilling all other requisite qualifications and eligibility
criteria prescribed under the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant
Rules, 1996.
(2 of 3) [CW-8840/2015]
A larger Bench of this Court pleased to consider the following
question on a reference by the Division Bench of this Court:-
"Whether the provisions of Rule 2(c) of the
Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of
Deceased Government Servant rules, 1996, which
excludes the married daughter from the definition of
'dependent', prior to its amendment vide Notification
dated 28/10/2021, is discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India? In case the
provision is discriminatory etc., the consequence
thereof."
The larger Bench vide its order dated 13.09.2022 in the Civil
Reference No. 1/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) pleased to answer the question referred to it
in the following terms:-
"The provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996,
which excludes the married daughter from definition of
dependent prior to its amendment vide notification dated
28.10.2021, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14
to 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the word
'unmarried' from the definition of 'dependent', is struck
down. Further, in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 also the
word unmarried daughters/adopted unmarried daughter,
shall be read as daughters/adopted daughter.
The judgment in the case of Sumer Kanwar (supra)
and all other judgments, which have followed the
judgment in the case of Sumer Kanwar (supra),
upholding the denial of compassionate appointment to
married daughter, are overruled.
As a consequence, it is directed that on account of
striking down of the word 'unmarried' from the definition
- (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein
compassionate appointment has already been granted
under the provisions as they stood before this order; (ii)
the same by itself would not provide a cause of action to
any applicant and would apply to cases which are either
pending before the competent authority and/or to the
cases where litigation is pending on the date of this
order only; (iii) the provisions and other requirements of
the definition regarding the applicant being wholly
dependent on the deceased government servant at the
time of his/her death would be scrupulously applied; (iv)
all the parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
(3 of 3) [CW-8840/2015]
Court for grant of compassionate appointment, shall also
be scrupulously followed and that (v) all other provisions
of the Rules except the inclusion of the 'married
daughter' in the definition of 'dependent', shall have full
application.
The matters be now placed before the Division
Bench for appropriate orders."
In view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by larger Bench
of this Court, the controversy involved in the matter is no longer
res integra. The present writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondent-Department to reconsider the petitioner's application
seeking compassionate appointment in accordance with scheme in
vogue, ignoring the fact that at the time of seeking appointment,
she was a 'married daughter'.
The entire exercise in the terms of the order passed by this
Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali (supra) shall be
completed within a period of two months from the date of this
order.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
29-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
