Disposed

Hemlata Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2022CW/1451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition declaring the matter resintegra after relying on a larger Bench judgment in Priyanka Shrimali. The Bench had held that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment is discriminatory. The petitioner was directed to have her application reconsidered without factoring in her marital status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application reconsidered under scheme in Priyanka Shrimali ignoring she was a married daughter.

Hemlata Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1451/2019

¶3

Hemlata Choudhary D/o Late Shri Kanhaya Lal Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Kishanpura, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Group-I, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

District Collector, Chittorgarh

¶9

Tehsildar, Gangrar, District Chittorgarh

¶10

Board Of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Ajmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. CP Soni
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Achraj Singh for
	Mr. Indu Shekhar Pareek
	Mr. Deepak Chandak

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

21/09/2022

¶16

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

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-1451/2019]

¶19

Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.

¶20

A larger Bench of this Court pleased to consider the following question on a reference by the Division Bench of this Court:-

¶21

“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.”

¶22

The larger Bench vide its order dated 13.09.2022 in the Civil

¶23

Reference No. 1/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of

¶24

Rajasthan & Ors.) pleased to answer the question referred to it

¶25

in the following terms:-

¶26

“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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-1451/2019]

¶31

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 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.

¶32

The matters be now placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders.”

¶33

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’ .

¶34

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.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

23-KashishS/-

Hemlata Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushboo Aasopa Vs Paschimi Raj. Dugdh U. S.Sangh Ltd.Andors

Dr. Harshvardhan Sarswat Vs State and Anr.

Smt. Prem Lata Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Garg Vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited, and Anr.

Dipti Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Satya Naryan Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.