Delhi District Court
Sangeeta vs The Chairman, Dda And Ors on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL,
LD. SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 2/2019
CNR No. DLNW03-002842-2018
In the matter of :-
Smt. Sangeeta
W/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o H.No. 271, Wazirpur,
J.J.Colony, New Delhi
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. The Chairman
D.D.A, Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A., New Delhi
2. The Commissioner/Director (Personnel),
D.D.A.,
Room No. 709, B-Block, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
3. Office of the Executive Engineer
South Extension Division No. 11,
D.D.A., Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
....Defendants
Date of institution : 24.12.2018
Reserved for Judgment : 24.02.2026
Date of decision : 10.03.2026
Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MAYANK MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10
16:47:39 +0530
CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 1 of 25
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff against defendants to grant/provide a job to the plaintiff on compassionate ground.
Plaintiff Case 2.1. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that Sh. Moolchand s/o Sh. Sawariya was working with defendants as a Beldar who died on 12.10.2005 leaving behind his wife Smt. Kamla, Sh. Vinod Kumar (his son), Smt. Sangeeta (his daughter- in-law), Ms. Shiksha (daughter of late Sh. Vinod Kumar) and Sh. Shubham (son of late Sh. Vinod Kumar). It is stated that the Executive Engineer S.E.D.-11/DDA had issued an office order dated 17.05.2008 stating that Smt. Kamla Devi w/o late Sh. Mool Chand was declared as legal heir vide E.O. No. 529 dated 28.07.2006 and since Smt. Kamla Devi has also expired on 21.04.2007, now Sh. Vinod Kumar is hereby declared legal heir of the deceased employee and his spouse on the basis of documents furnished by him. It is averred that Sh. Vinod Kumar had filed a petition for succession certificate. The same was granted by the Court of Sh. Sumit Dass, the then Admin. Civil Judge vide order dated 02.09.2013. After granting of succession Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 certificate Sh. Vinod Kumar got all his father's service benefits 16:47:41 +0530 and department assured that they will provide him a job on compassionate ground in place of his father late Sh. Mool Chand.
CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 2 of 25 2.2. Thereafter, Sh. Vinod Kumar, husband of the plaintiff (Smt. Sangeeta) had moved an application for job on compassionate ground. The same was under process/pending for consideration. It is stated that after the unfortunate death of Sh.
Vinod Kumar on 12.01.2018, the plaintiff who is now head of the family of late Sh. Mool Chand has moved an application for a job on compassionate ground in place of her husband Sh. Vinod Kumar by a letter dated 01.02.2018 alongwith death certificate of Sh. Vinod Kumar. It is averred that it is hard for the plaintiff to make both ends meet.
2.3. As such the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant to consider her request for service on compassionate ground on 13.03.2018. The said notice duly served upon the defendant and the defendant had given a reply and stated that on receipt of representation of late Sh. Vinod Kumar dated 23.07.2013 his case was placed before the Appellate Committee in its meeting held on 21.01.2014, it was directed to carry out physical verification of the claim made by the appellant (late Sh. Vinod Kumar) and collect documentary evidence in support of the claim from Welfare Inspector. The Welfare Inspector vide his report dated 19.01.2014 and 22.04.2014 reported that the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar was not available on the address mentioned by the applicant in the appeal. The reply of DDA mentioned that daughter-in-law is not covered. It is stated that Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL Sh. Vinod Kumar who was legible for a job on compassionate MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:33 +0530 ground died during the process of his appointment and he has not changed his address and remained throughout at the address given to the defendant for the last 9 years.
CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 3 of 25 2.4. As per DDA Office order dated 17.05.2008, the plaintiff is also legal heir and entitled to get the job on compassionate ground in place of her father-in-law late Sh. Mool Chand. The plaintiff has also served a legal notice under Section 80 CPC as well as notice under Section 63B, DDA Act on 14.08.2018 further requested the defendant to consider her appeal for a job on compassionate ground so that she may survive herself alongwith her children. The defendants have given a reply dated 20.09.2018 of the notice under Section 80 CPC and have alleged that her request has been declined vide their reply dated 08.05.2018. Hence, the present suit.
Defendant Case 3.1. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as the plaintiff is challenging the order dated 28.09.2018 and 08.05.2018 by way of filling the present suit for mandatory injunction. The suit is liable to be dismissed in accordance to the Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India in the O.M.No. 14014/02/2012- Estt. (D) dated 16.01.2013 have clearly and categorically stated in the scheme for compassionate appointment that daughter in law of the government servant is exempted from the list of the Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL eligible dependent family members. That the Department Of MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:38 +0530 Personnel And Training, Government Of India in its Scheme For Compassionate Appointment in the sub heading note 1 gives an exhaustive list of dependent family members under the heading CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 4 of 25 "Dependent Family Member means". The stated list includes the following family members as a dependent family member :
➤ Spouse or ➤ Son (including adopted son) or ➤ Daughter( including adopted daughter) or ➤ Brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government Servant or ➤ Member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para, Who was wholly dependent on the government servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.
3.2. It is contended that Sh. Moolchand s/o Sawwalia, Beldar, Work charge (Regular) was working in South Eastern Division-11 of DDA was expired on 12.10.2005 and death notification issued by the S.E.D-11 vide E.O. No. 222 dated 15.04.2006 Smt. Kamla Devi w/o late Sh. Mool Chand was declared the legal heir of the deceased on the basis of nomination furnished by late Sh. Mool Chand and thereafter the case was forwarded to this office for compassionate appointment to Sh.
Vinod Kumar. After obtaining the physical report of Welfare Inspector of DDA the matter was placed before the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 04.02.2013, 05.02.2013 and the committee did not recommend this case for appointment. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL Accordingly, Sh. Vinod Kumar was informed vide this office MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:35 +0530 letter dated 18.04.2013. Sh. Vinod Kumar after receiving the order dated 18.04.2013 had given representation dated 23.07.2013 to the department and after that his case was placed CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 5 of 25 before the Appellate committee in its meeting held on 21.01.2014 and Appellate committee had directed to carry out the physical verification of the claim(s) made by the appellants i.e. Sh. Vinod Kumar in his appeal and collect documentary evidence in support of the claim through Welfare Inspector. Welfare Inspector vide report dated 19.02.2014 & 22.04.2014 intimated that the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar was not available on the address mentioned by the applicant in the appeal application. As per the position explained above the wife of deceased employee was expired. Thereafter, on re-verification applicant was not available on the address mentioned in his appeal. Now, Smt Sangeeta w/o late Sh. Vinod Kumar and daughter-in-law of late Sh. Mool Chand is not covered under family members for compassionate appointment as per Dopt guidelines. The defendant has denied all the allegations levelled in the plaint and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant wherein the contents of the plaint have been reiterated and the contentions of the defendant in his written statement have been denied except the admissions made.
Issues
5. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL 26.07.2023, the following issues were framed by my learned MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:35 +0530 Predecessor for trial :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for job as claimed because CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 6 of 25 plaintiff is declared as legal heir by the DDA? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff's daughter-in-law is not entitled for any kind of job according to WS? OPP
(iii) Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence
6. Plaintiff was examined as PW-1, who tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A has stated and deposed on lines of plaint in her affidavit of examination in chief. She has relied upon the following documents:
1. Photocopy of legal notice dated 13.03.2018 with postal receipt on back of last page of legal notice is Ex.PW1/1;
2. Reply to the Legal Notice dated 13.03.2018 given by DDA on 08.05.2018 is Ex. PW1/2;
3. Photocopy of legal notice on dated 14.08.2018 u/s 80 of CPC & u/s 53B of DDA Act with postal receipt on back of last page of legal notice is Ex.PW1/3;
4. Photocopy of reply to notice u/s 80 of CPC is Ex.PW1/4;
5. Photocopy of cheques issued by DDA in favour of Sh. Vinod Kumar is Mark A(colly);
6. Ration Card of Sh. Mool Chand is Ex.PW1/5(OSR);
7. Photocopy of letter written by Moolchand to Dept. of DDA is Mark B;
8. Photocopy of India Court Fee paid by Vinod Kumar is Mark Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
C;
2026.03.10 16:47:34 +0530
9. Photocopy of Letter written by plaintiff to department of DDA to inform that her husband has died and request for service on compassionate ground received by DDA vide letter no.F3 (3) CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 7 of 25 2010/PB-5 is Mark D;
10. Photocopy of letter issued by DDA Division No. 11 E.O.No. 148 in favour of plaintiff declared legal heir is Mark E;
11. Photocopy of Death Certificate of Sh. Vinod Kumar is Ex.PW1/6(OSR).
7. During her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she has not filed any identity proof with regard to her genuineness of her relation to late Shri Vinod Kumar and that she has not filed any proof to prove that late Shri Vinod Kumar was ever any employee of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) at any point of time and also that she has not filed any document which could show that DDA had appointed her deceased husband late Shri Vinod Kumar as an employee to their organization at any point of time. PW1 admitted that her husband had applied for appointment on compassionate ground from the address i.e. C-1/58B, Keshav Puram, Delhi and that the house/staff quarter at that address was vacated by them in the year 2006/2007. She voluntarily deposed that she does not remember the exact date and month. She deposed that Welfare Inspector had gone to make inquiry and for physical verification and her husband who was the applicant was not found at the address. PW1 voluntarily deposed that at that time they had shifted to rented premises and she is not aware whether he had gone at her back at the said address. She stated that she has not told her rented addresses to Digitally signed the department as she has changed 5-6 addresses at that time.
by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:36 +0530 PW1 denied the suggestion that she does not have any right for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother in law and her husband and that her appointment is solely CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 8 of 25 discretion of the Department. PW1 deposed that she is 8th class pass and that she can read Hindi but cannot read English. She admitted that she has not applied in DDA for her appointment on compassionate ground till date. PW1 voluntarily deposed that she had gone number of times in the office, however, she had been told that she has no right to apply on compassionate ground. PW1 denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
8. Sh. Vipin Chotala examined as PW-2, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW2/A has stated and deposed on lines of plaint in his affidavit of examination in chief.
9. During his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that he is 8th class pass and that he cannot read Hindi and English language and also that his date of birth is 12.08.1998. He stated that he is living at the aforesaid address since his birth and that he knows Smt. Sangeeta for the last 12-13 years being neighbour and also that he does not know Shri Mool Chand, son of Shri Sawariya. PW2 deposed that he had read the affidavit Ex.PW2/A before signing the same and that contents of his affidavit has been written as per his instructions and also that he does not know the date of death of Shri Mool Chand. Shri Vinod Kumar, his wife and two children, Shubham and Siksha of Vinod Kumar were the legal heirs of late Shri Mool Chand. PW2 admitted that he is not aware about any succession certificate of late Shri Mool Chand Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 obtained by Shri Vinod Kumar and that he is not aware when 16:47:43 +0530 Shri Vinod Kumar had applied for job in DDA on compassionate ground and also that he is not aware about the date of death of CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 9 of 25 Shri Vinod Kumar or his mother Kamla Devi. PW2 deposed that the household expenses of the plaintiff Smt. Sangeeta is managed by her by working as maid. He denied the suggestion that neither he is aware about the facts of the case nor about the contents of his affidavit and that his affidavit Ex.PW2/A has been prepared only at the instance of the plaintiff and also that he is deposing falsely.
10. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 02.12.2025 and the matter was adjourned for defendant's evidence.
Defendant Evidence
11. Sh. Deepankar Gupta, Director (Personal) (II), DDA examined as DW1, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/1 and reiterated on oath the contents of his affidavit. He has relied upon the following documents:
a) Copy of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment list of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India is Ex.DW1/A.
(b) Copy of the Office Letter dated 18.04.2013 is Ex.DW1/B.
(c) Copy of the order dated 21.01.2014 is Ex.DW1/C. (Though document is on record, however, the document has not been written as exhibited in evidence affidavit.) Digitally signed
12. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for plaintiff by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:39 +0530 DW1 stated that as per DoPT orders as mentioned in para no.5 of his evidence affidavit, the daughter in law is not eligible. He denied the suggestion that she is eligible. He admitted that a lady CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 10 of 25 can apply for the post of Beldar. He denied the suggestion that as Sangeeta has applied for her appointment on compassionate ground as Mr. Vinod Kumar who was husband of Sangeeta has expired after applying on compassionate ground but before getting appointed and accordingly Sangeeta is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. He stated that it is a matter of record on the basis of report of the Welfare Officer said Vinod Kumar was not found at the address given by him. DW1 denied the suggestion that all contents of his affidavit are false and selectively written to defeat the case of the plaintiff and that he is deposing falsely.
13. Sh. Kranti Kumar, Assistant Director PB-V/DDA, examined as DW2, who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW2/A and reiterated on oath the contents of his affidavit. He has relied upon already relied documents of DW1.
14. During his cross examination by ld. Counsel for plaintiff DW2 stated that he knows the order dated 28.09.2018 and 08.05.2018. DDA follow the rules of DoPT. Guidelines, according to this the daughter in law does not claim compensatory services. DW2 denied the suggestion that Sangeeta is entitled for job on compensatory ground. At this stage, witness has been shown a copy of certain guidelines and asked whether these guidelines have been issued Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL by DDA. MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:36 +0530 Court Observation: Question disallowed as this is a matter of rules/procedure. However, guidelines are marked as Mark DW2/X1 for identification.
CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 11 of 25 DW2 denied the suggestion that the contents of para 6, 9 to 13 of his affidavit are false and that the plaintiff was residing at the given address when the inspector has visited the place, however, inspector has given his false and incorrect report. At this stage, witness has been shown one letter and asked whether same has been issued by DDA. After perusal of same witness has submitted that as the same is photocopy he cannot comment whether same was issued by DDA or not. The letter is now marked as Mark DW2/X2.
DW2 denied the suggestion that plaintiff has filed the appropriate and correct suit for seeking employment on compassionate ground from DDA. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
15. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 22.01.2026 and matter was listed for final arguments.
16. Final arguments have been heard. I have gone through the judicial record.
17. Now I shall give my issue-wise findings.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for job as claimed because plaintiff is declared as legal heir by the DDA? OPP Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff's daughter-in-law is not Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL entitled for any kind of job according to WS? OPP MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:42 +0530 17.1 Issue no. 1 and 2 both these issues have been taken together for decision as both issues are linked to each other and CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 12 of 25 in fact issue no. 1 is in affirmative and issue no. 2 is the same issue in negative. The burden of proving issue no. 1 was on plaintiff and burden of proving issue no. 2 was on defendant.
(Though it has been mistakenly mentioned that burden of proving issue no. 1 was on plaintiff).
17.2 In order to discharge the burden of proving respective issues and to discharge the onus of prove and the other issue, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and also one Sh. Vipin Chotala as PW-2. These witnesses have been deposed on the lines of plaint and have been cross examined at length by defendant. Defendant has examined two witnesses Sh. Deepankar Gupta as DW-1 and Sh. Kranti Kumar as DW-2, who have deposed on the lines of WS during their examination in chief. DW-1 and DW-2 have been cross examined at length. In order to discharge the burden of prove, the plaintiff is required to prove that the plaintiff i.e. daughter-in-law of late Sh. Moolchand has entitlement to be appointed as Beldar on compassionate ground and the fact that she is related as daughter-in-law to late Sh. Moolchand does not come in the way of her appointment as Beldar on compassionate ground. Per contra, in order to discharge the burden of prove, the defendant has to prove that the plaintiff being daughter-in-law as not entitled to appointment as Beldar on compassionate ground as daughter-in-law does not fall within the category of legal heirs provided by rules applicable on defendant, providing for the appointment of legal heirs on Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL compassionate ground. MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:39 +0530 17.3 From the consideration of argument and perusal of record as well as written submissions, it is noted that it is admitted fact that late Sh. Moolchand was employee of the defendant and was CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 13 of 25 working as Beldar in South-Eastern Division-11 of DDA, who expired on 12.10.2005 and on his death his wife late Smt. Kamla Devi was declared his legal heir by the defendant. It is further admitted fact on the death of late Smt. Kamla Devi, late Sh.
Vinod Kumar i.e. husband of plaintiff has applied for his appointment as Beldar on compassionate ground, however, the screening committee has not recommended his case for appointment. It is also admitted fact that late Sh. Vinod Kumar had filed a representation dt. 23.07.2013 against the order of screening committee dt. 18.04.2013, where the welfare inspector had intimated the appellate committee that late Sh. Vinod Kumar was not available on the address mentioned by him in the application for appeal.
17.4 The present suit has been opposed mainly on the ground that daughter-in-law does not fall within the category of legal heirs, specified by guidelines of DoPT applicable on defendant, providing for legal heirs, who can be appointed on compassionate ground. As per guidelines of DoPT only spouse or son or daughter or brother/sister (in case of unmarried govt. servant) are entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. There is no doubt that daughter-in-law as such does not fall within the category of legal heirs provided by DoPT, applicable on DDA/defendant. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in case of National Institute of Technology & Ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh, AIR Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL 2007 SUPREME COURT 1155; to assert his point that MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:37 +0530 compassionate appointments are exception to the rule of equality contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and no appointment on such ground can be granted in favour of person CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 14 of 25 other than those for whose benefits the exception has been carved out. The plaintiff has already relied upon the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 SCC (4) 138; to assert that only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the penurious condition of deceased family. Plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India in State of J And K And Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743; to assert that once it is proved that inspite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say good bye to normal rule of appointment. 17.5 As against it, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of PNKY Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein, Hon'ble High Court has read daughter-in-law within the scope of daughter. 17.6 In this regard, it is important to refer to decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where Hon'ble High Courts while discussing the entitlement of daughter-in-law after the death of father-in-law to be employed on the basis of compassionate appointment, has explained that a widow daughter-in-law is as much member of family as a daughter. The relevant portion of judgments Hon'ble High Courts are reproduced herein:
(I) Durga Devi Mairda v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 336 : (2024) 1 RLW 410 : 2024 Lab IC 4442 : (2024) 3 WLC 1, decided on 02.01.2024 Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL
15. This Court further observes that the judgment rendered MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:41 +0530 in Sushila Devi's case, (supra) by the Hon'ble Division Bench is in the same circumstances where the mother-in- law died and her son also expired and thus, the widowed daughter-in-law remained the only person in the family to CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 15 of 25 defend the miseries of poverty and untimely demises in the family. This Court also observes that while delivering the verdict in the case of Sushila Devi, (supra), the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has deliberated upon the judgment of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010, decided by the learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 12.09.2011) the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, (Civil Appeal No. 5122/2021, decided on 13.09.2021) and the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Smt. Sapna v. University of Rajasthan : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9686/2020 decided on 04.12.2020 at length as cited by both the parties. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment dated 04.07.2023 rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sushila Devi, (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).21240/2023 (The State of Rajasthan v. Sushila Devi),. The said order dated 09.10.2023, in entirety, reads as under:
"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any."
16. This Court also observes that Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which defines the dependent has been dealt with at length by this Hon'ble Court in the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra), for the purpose of purposive interpretation; the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:
"9. Lord Denning in Magor and St Mellons v. Newport Borough Council, (1952) HL, Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL said that "we sit here to find out the intention of MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:34 +0530 Parliament and carry it out and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis". Justice Aharon Barak, President of the Supreme Court of CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 16 of 25 Israel, while discussing the scope of doctrine of the "purposive interpretation" pointed out that "in carrying out a purposive interpretation of a constitution or a statute, it is necessary to distinguish between its subjective and objective purposes. The subjective purpose of a constitution or statute is the actual intent that the authors of it, namely, the farmers of the Constitution or the legislature, respectively, held at the time of the. making of the Constitution or the statute, on the other hand, the objective purpose is not what the author actually intended but rather what a hypothetical reasonable author would have intended, given the context of the underlying legal system, history and values, etc. of the society for which he is making law. This objective purpose will thus usually be interpreted to include the realization, through the given legal text, of the fundamental or core values of the legal system."
10. The Francis Bennion in a book of Statutory Interpretation (4th edition 2002 page 810) defined the purposive interpretation as under:--
"A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by : (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose."
11 The doctrine aforesaid is not alien to our jurisprudence also. The only ???aution given by the Apex Court in several judgments including the J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, ((2003) 5 SCC 134 :
AIR 2003 SC 1405) and State of
Jharkhand v. Govind Singh,. (JT (2004) 10 SC 349) Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MAYANK MITTAL
is that the effect of such interpretation of a statute in MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:37 +0530 no case should be of amending the law.
12. From the discussion above, it is clear that in exceptional cases, without having any effect of amending the law the Courts with a view to bring the CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 17 of 25 law as per the reasonable and purposive intention of the law maker and also looking to all relevant objective conditions may adopt the doctrine of "purposive interpretation".
13. Now coming to the Rules of 1996, purpose of which is to provide a respite by way of employing his/her dependent during the time of distress/harness due to unexpected death of a government servant, it is to be examined that whether non-inclusion of "widowed daughter- in-law", as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents serves the purpose of the Rules or ultimately the intent of the author of the Rules. The scope of the Rules of 1996, as per Rule 4 is to govern appointment of the deceased government servant on compassionate grounds without conferring any right for a particular post. The Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 provides certain conditions for appointment and those are:--
"(1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered, for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL (2) Appointment under these rules shall be MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:43 +0530 given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionated ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 18 of 25 and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated."
14. At this point, the reference of the definition of the "Dependent" as given in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 shall be worthwhile which brings spouse, son, unmarried daughter or widowed daughter, adopted unmarried daughter and adopted son in its ambit, and as per Rule 5(1) the admissibility for appointment under the Rules of 1996 is not available, where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any other State or the Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central or any other State Government at the time of death of the government servant.
15. It is quite important to notice here that subrule(l) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 do not mention about a widowed daughter who is otherwise a dependent as per Rule 2(c). This exclusion is having a significance. If the law framing authority was to provide inadmissibility for appointment on simplicitor Digitally signed by MAYANK employment of any dependent, then "widowed MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 daughter" should have also been referred in Rule 5(1), 16:47:40 +0530 but that has not been done purposely. The exclusion of the "widowed daughter" in Rule 5(1) is made only with a view that such a daughter is supposed to serve and support her in-laws and her own children also, CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 19 of 25 therefore, even if she is having some employment with the institutions referred in sub-rule(l) of Rule 5, the other dependents shall be having admissibility for compassionate appointments. The exclusion of "widowed daughter" in Rule 5(1) in quite unambiguous terms depicts that the author of the Rules were aware about the fact that a "daughter- inlaw", who also happens to be a "widowed daughter"
is supposed to serve her inlaws, her children and also her parental family.
16. The question now arise that if the law making authority was aware about the position of "widowed daughter-in-law" then why in the category of dependents under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, she as not been placed in explicit? To resolve this knot, a look on the relations expressly referred in the definition of dependents is desirable. The relations of spouse, son, adopted son, unmarried or adopted unmarried daughter in no way can include the relation of "widowed daughter-in-law", however, the term "widowed daughter" appears to be quite wide and that may include "widowed daughter-in-law" for the purpose of these rules.
17. If the rule makers were intending to exclude "widowed daughter-in-law" from the category of dependents, then they would have include "widowed daughter" in the category of dependents, employment of whom makes appointment on compassionate grounds inadmissible under the Rules of 1996, but it has not been done. Meaning thereby, a "widowed daughter" is also a "widowed daughterin-law", who is supposed to serve her in-laws and children. Thus, it appears that he term "widowed daughter-in-law" is part of "widowed daughter''.".
17. This Court further observes that in the case of State of Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, (supra), there was a MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:36 +0530 delay of ten years, and moreover, the petitioners were unable to satisfy the Hon'ble Court regarding the applicability of the circular/scheme for the purpose of compassionate appointment; however, as a clear CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 20 of 25 distinction, this Court is dealing with the statutory Rules of 1996, and the Rules themselves are formidably there for the families in harness and have a wide amplitude for the purpose of laying down a protective layer over the families of the people, who untimely expired while in government service.
18. This Court is of the opinion that the verdict rendered in the case of Smt. Pinki, (supra) was correct in the eye of law in the given circumstances as passed by learned Single Bench, and though the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2012 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1915/2011 (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Pinki), because of the factual parameters of the case as well as the legal matrix sounded for the purposive interpretation, but the question as to whether the widowed daughter-in-law would fall within the definition of the term 'dependent' as contained in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was left open to be adjudicated in appropriate case in future separately for arriving at a final answer to the said question.
19. In the opinion of this Court, the claim of the appellant herein, who is a widowed daughter-in-law, for compassionate appointment, in the present facts and circumstances of the case is supported by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sushila Devi, (supra), and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide the aforementioned order dated 09.10.2023. Thus, this Court considers it appropriate to adjudicate upon the question of law involved herein, which question was left open for adjudication by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Pinki, (supra).
20. The term 'dependent' as occurring in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 (as amended in the year 2021), upon the purposive interpretation, should include widowed daughter-in-law in the circumstances where the widowed Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL daughter and unmarried daughter have been included as a MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:33 +0530 consequence which has to follow in the set up of the Indian Society where the widowed daughter-in-law at times has to take up the same role as the son and daughter particularly, when in the circumstances like in the present case where CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 21 of 25 there is no daughter and no son to defend the family against the miseries of poverty and destitution.
22. This Court also observes that the jurisprudence laid down by the learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the judgment rendered in Smt. Pinki, (supra) for purposive interpretation has gone at a great length to assess the impact of the legislative intention which are there behind the laws and once the dependents have been defined in a particular law and it has included widowed daughter then widowed daughter-in-law, which also forms a part of the same family in the same set up of the prevailing social fabric of this country, it is required that the purposive interpretation has to be upheld and has to be strengthened for the purpose of providing immediate relief to the family, of whom, the sole bread earner has died in harness, and thus, there can be no reason why such interpretation cannot be drawn or such conclusion cannot be arrived at in the given circumstances.
(II) Smt. K. Hamakshi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 17.03.2025 by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravait in Writ Petition (AT) No. 2139 OF 2021
12. Compassionate appointments aim to swiftly support the bereaved family of a government employee who dies in service. This assistance allows for the direct appointment of a son, daughter, or spouse without needing to go through the employment exchange process, adhering to the specific conditions outlined in relevant orders issued periodically as part of social security measures. When the government recognizes a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in- law, while not traditionally classified as family, will also be considered for compassionate grounds due to her integral role within the family. Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10
13. Upon the death of her husband, a daughter-in-law does 16:47:42 +0530 not stop being part of the family and, therefore, has the right to be considered for a compassionate appointment, as she remains a member of the family into which she is married. When a married daughter becomes a daughter-in-law CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 22 of 25 through her marriage and enters her in-laws‟ household, she should be considered for a compassionate appointment under the definition of family. The same benefit can be extended to the daughter-in-law along similar lines.
14. After a daughter gets married, she becomes an integral part of the family she joins. Conversely, the daughter-in- law, who enters the family, becomes a vital member and has a more substantial right to request compassionate appointments to ensure the welfare of her children. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Smt. Urmila Devi3 held as follows:
"It is not possible to understand how a widowed daughter in her father‟s house has a better right to claim appointment on compassionate basis than a widowed daughter-in-law in her father-in-law‟s house."
16. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Vibha Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 others4, at Para No.8 has considered the judgment of U.P. Power Corporation Limited (3rd supra) and held as follows at Para Nos.9 and 13:
"8. We must, however, note one feature of the definition of the word 'family' as generally contained in most Rules. The definition of 'family' includes wife or husband; sons; unmarried and widowed daughters; and if the deceased was an unmarried government servant, the brother, unmarried sister and widowed mother dependant on the deceased government servant. It is, therefore, clear that a widowed daughter in the house of her parents is entitled for consideration on compassionate appointment. However, a widowed daughter-in-law in the house where she is married, is not entitled for compassionate appointment as she is Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL not included in the definition of 'family'. It is not MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:40 +0530 possible to understand how a widowed daughter in her father's house has a better right to claim appointment on compassionate basis than a widowed daughter-in-law in her father-in-law's house. The CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 23 of 25 very nature of compassionate appointment is the financial need or necessity of the family. The daughter-in-law on the death of her husband does not cease to be a part of the family. The concept that such daughter-in-law must go back and stay with her parents is abhorrent to our civilized society. Such daughter-in-law must, therefore, have also right to be considered for compassionate appointment as she is part of the family where she is married and if staying with her husband's family. In this context, in our opinion, arbitrariness, as presently existing, can be avoided by including the daughter-in-law in the definition of 'family'. Otherwise, the definition to that extent, prima facie, would be irrational and arbitrary. The State, therefore, to consider this aspect and take appropriate steps so that a widowed daughter-in-law like a widowed daughter, is also entitled for consideration by way of compassionate appointment, if other criterion is satisfied."
.................
.................
"13. As per the custom of Indian Society, daughter- in-law is also supposed to be treated as a daughter as she is also an integral part of the family. The main purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of a deceased government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of death of sole bread earner of the family. Even in the instant case, an exceptional situation has been created as though the husband of the petitioner is alive but he is having more than 75% disability and he is unable to earn/work, which requires a liberal construction of the meaning under Section 2(c) of the Rules, 1974."Digitally signed
(emphasis supplied) by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10 16:47:38 +0530
17.7 This court is guided by the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India and at the same time is of CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 24 of 25 opinion that above stated judgments of Hon'ble High Courts are in conformity with the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India cited above. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh give purposeful and harmonious meaning to the word 'daughter' used in the category of legal heirs, which may claim employment on the basis of compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and as a consequence, issue no. 2 is decided against defendant.
Relief
18. In view of my observations made, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and defendant is directed to properly consider the request of plaintiff as per rules for her appointment on compassionate ground within 30 days from the date of passing this order, assuming that daughter-in-law is in the category of legal heirs, who may claim employment on the basis of compassionate appointment.
Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the suit.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MAYANK MITTAL
on 10.03.2026 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.10
16:47:33 +0530
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi CS SCJ 2/19 Sangeeta V. The Chairman, DDA & Ors. Page No. 25 of 25