Allowed

Radha Gadri v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2022CW/6142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition allowed, directing the respondent department to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. The court treated her as a dependent based on the striking down of the 'unmarried' restriction in the 1996 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was directed to be reconsidered by treating her as a dependent of the deceased Government Servant.

Radha Gadri Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6142/2022

¶4

Radha Gadri D/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Gadri, W/o Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Gadriyon Ki Bhagal, Nagarpura Post Rundeda Tehsil Vallabhnagar District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶9

District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Elementary, Udaipur.

¶10

Chief Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon District Udaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vinay Jain
		Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Bhawna Jangid,Dy. G.C.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

02/11/2022

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the married daughter of the deceased Government Servant challenging the definition of dependents provided in Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Rules of 1996’) seeking compassionate appointment in the Department.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s father late Shri Chunni Lal Gadri was working on the post of ClassIV employee in the respondent-department when while in service

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-6142/2022]

¶20

he, unfortunately passed away on 11.08.2021. Learned counsel further submitted that after the sad demise of the deceased Government Servant an application was submitted by the petitioner as per the provisions of the Rules of 1996 in prescribed proforma seeking compassionate appointment along with a no objection certificate of other dependents of the deceased government servant. However, the Chief Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Badgaon, Udaipur vide letter dated 25.10.2021 informed the petitioner that she being the married daughter of the deceased employee is not eligible for compassionate appointment under Rules of 1996. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by a larger Bench of this Court in the Civil Reference No.1/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the married daughter of the deceased government employee is not covered by the definition of the dependents given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled for compassionate appointment in the respondentdepartment. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.6938/2022 (The State of Maharastra & Anr. Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate(Since after Marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) .

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

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

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-6142/2022]

¶26

“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.”

¶27

The larger Bench vide its order dated 13.09.2022 in the Civil Reference No.1/2022 (Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was pleased to answer the question referred to it in the following terms:-

¶28

“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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-6142/2022]

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case The State of Maharastra & Anr. Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate(Since after Marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the present case as the application seeking compassionate appointment in the aforesaid case was made almost after seven years of the death of the deceased government servant and in those peculiar facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a number of years have passed from the death of the deceased Government Employee.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-department to reconsider the petitioner’s application seeking compassionate appointment in accordance with rules in vogue, by treating her to be entitled for consideration as a dependent of the deceased Government Servant.

¶37

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.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶40

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶41

59-KshamaD/-

Radha Gadri v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Gadri 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri Rameshwar Lal Dhani Devi T.T. School

Commissioner of Income Tax Tds Vs M/S Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Murliwala Agrotek Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunny Vs Union of India

Dalip Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bheeya Ram Jajra Vs State of Rajasthan