Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2022CW/2712/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order dismissing a writ petition by a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment. The court directs the department to reconsider her application in light of a larger Bench judgment that struck down the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent department to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within two months, ignoring her marital status.

Khushboo Aasopa Vs Paschimi Raj. Dugdh U… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2712/2018

¶3

Khushboo Aasopa D/o Late Shri Murlidhar Ji Aasopa, By Caste Dadhich Brahmin, Resident Of 20/367, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Unit- I, Jodhpur.

¶7

The Chief And Managing Director, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Unit First, Jodhpur Dairy, Jodhpur.

¶8

The General Manager, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Unit First, Jodhpur Dairy, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. J Gehlot

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

20/09/2022

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-2712/2018]

¶17

“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.”

¶18

The larger Bench vide its order dated 13.09.2022 in the Civil

¶19

Reference No. 1/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) pleased to answer the question referred to it in the following terms:-

¶20

“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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 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

¶23

(3 of 3) [CW-2712/2018]

¶24

daughter' in the definition of 'dependent', shall have full application.

¶25

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

¶26

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’ .

¶27

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.

¶28

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶29

36-KashishS/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Om Prakash Ojha Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Mahima Ashish Loyal Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Suman Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dr. Harshvardhan Sarswat Vs State and Anr.

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

Gopal Lal Safela Vs State of Rajasthan