Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Seema Srivastava vs Northern Railway on 30 May, 2024
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000285 of 2022 Seema Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 285 of 2022
Dated this 30th day of May, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Seema Srivastava, aged about 35 years, daughter of Late Anil Kumar,
resident of SS-II, Sector -D-1, 460 LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Jitendra Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi.
2. Chief Works Manager (W), Loco Workshop, Northern Railway,
Charbagh, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER
By- Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to appointment on compassionate ground, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 and 11.11.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, denying to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this Original Application.
(ii) Issue an order or direction directing the opposite parties to reconsider and appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds on suitable post, ignoring the marital status of the applicant.
(iii) Issue order or direction directing the opposite parties to consider and decide representation dated 29.07.2021 filed by the applicant.
(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.
(v) Allow the application with cost.
Page 1 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000285 of 2022 Seema Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's mother, Anil Kumari wife of Late Hari Prakash, while working as Chief Office Superintendent in Rolling Stock Workshop under the respondents, died in harness on 16.04.2021 leaving behind two married daughters, including the applicant. The applicant applied for appointment on compassionate ground and approached this Tribunal in OA No. 33 of 2022 when the respondents did not respond to her representation. This Tribunal, vide order dated 14.02.2022, directed the respondents to decide the applicant's representation dated 29.07.2021. Subsequently, the applicant's representation was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 04.04.2022 on the ground that she was married during the lifetime of her mother. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that married daughter is included within the definition of dependent family members of the Government servant under the dying in harness rules and Hon'ble High Court in Vimla Srivastava vs State of UP & Anr 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (Annexure 6 to the OA) held that exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression of 'family' in rule 2(c) of dying in harness rules is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), vide memorandum dated 30.05.2013, has clarified that married daughter can be considered for compassionate appointment provided that she was wholly dependent on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness. The applicant states that she was fully dependent on her mother and was living with her.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs Madhuri Vidhate in Civil Appeal No. 6938 of 2022 vide judgment dated 30.09.2022 has laid down the ratio that the married daughter cannot considered to be dependent Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000285 of 2022 Seema Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
upon her mother and, therefore, cannot be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 In Vimla Srivastava (supra), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was considering the expression 'unmarried daughters and unmarried adopted daughters' in rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules. Vide judgment dated 04.12.2015, Hon'ble High Court held as follows:
"26. In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
27. We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules."
(emphasis supplied) 6.2.1 In State of Punjab & Anr vs Amarjit Kaur LPA - 462 - 2021 (O&M), Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was considering whether the State is justified in excluding consideration of married daughter for appointment on compassionate ground. In the judgment dated 25.01.2023, their Lordships observed:
"25. We are of the considered opinion that the exclusion at the outset in the case of a married daughter is apparently arbitrary. As noticed above, the eligibility aspect and the fact that she may be dependent upon the deceased employee would be subject matter of consideration by the competent authority as per the scheme of the Government. The rejection at the threshold only on the ground of gender would be violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India since in contrast similarly situated sibling like the son who may be married and living separately would come within the zone of consideration since in his case, under Clause (b) of Note-I, it is not that his consideration is excluded being the married son. The policy also further provides that under Clause 6, the eligibility is to be seen and therefore, being excluded by the definition of dependent family member, married daughters are kept out of the zone of consideration of eligibility. Same would thus mitigate against the factor that under Clause 14, an undertaking is also to be given that the family is to be maintained and the property is to be looked after of the deceased Government servant and the appointment can be terminated. Thus, a married daughter is shut out from even applying as she would not come within the zone of consideration whether she is dependent or not but exclusion is only on account of gender and it would be patently discriminatory. The deceased Government employee might have only been blessed with daughters and a widow who is not in a position to Page 3 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000285 of 2022 Seema Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
take up employment. Merely because the daughters are married would not exclude them from the zone of consideration as they would be in a position to help the widow if they are given employment keeping in view the undertaking which is also to be taken from the said applicant on account of favourable consideration."
(emphasis supplied) It is well settled that the State would not be justified in excluding married daughter from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. 6.2.2 It may be added that in Amarjit Kaur (supra), Hon'ble High Court distinguished Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra) cited by the respondents in following terms:
"38. Similarly in Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra) the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of right of compassionate appointments which had been allowed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the Apex Court that after a period of 7 years from the date of death of the mother, the younger daughter had made an application for appointment after denial had been made by the elder married sister in the year 2011. Accordingly the order passed in favour of the applicant was set aside by taking into consideration that the appointments were an exception to the general rule under the said policy and there is no right to compassionate appointments which again operated in peculiar facts. Firstly, the Government employee had died and after that the mother had been appointed on compassionate grounds in that case. Unfortunately, she also died while in service and the elder daughter's request had been rejected on 18.08.2011 on the ground that she is a married daughter. The second application was filed in the year 2013 and the Original Application was filed in the year 2015, 2 years after the rejection order was passed in the year 2013. Accordingly, question was framed whether the respondent was entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus, it was on merits regarding the fact that there was delay in approaching the authorities by another sibling and thus, it would operate in peculiar facts and circumstances and not on the principle that consideration is to be denied to the married daughters in toto."
(emphasis supplied) 6.3 Finally, it is observed that the scheme for compassionate appointment under Central Government updated by DoPT on 02.08.2022 defines the dependent family members as follows:
Note I "Dependent Family Member" means:
(a) spouse; or
(b) son (including adopted son); or
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or
(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or ......"
(emphasis supplied) Page 4 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/000285 of 2022 Seema Srivastava Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
It is evident that daughter, whether married or unmarried, is not excluded from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground provided she is a dependent family member.
7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, the OA is allowed and the orders dated 11.11.2021 and dated 04.04.2022 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground afresh on merits and decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. For avoidance of any doubt, it is made clear that no observation is made on merits of the applicant's case.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) Warij Page 5 of 5