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 (Downloaded on 14/01/2022 at 08:41:39 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 14/01/2022 at 08:41:39 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 14/01/2022 at 08:41:39 PM) (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/-
(Downloaded on 14/01/2022 at 08:41:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)