Give Compassionate Appointment To Daughter-In-Law Who Lost Working Mother-In-Law, Husband To COVID-19: High Court To Rajasthan Govt

Granting relief to a woman who lost her mother-in-law — a senior government teacher, husband and father-in-law in quick succession, the Rajasthan High Court said that such exceptional situation requires the liberal construction of “dependent” under Rule 2 (c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, to include the “daughter in law”.

The court set aside the government's decision to reject the application of the daughter-in-law for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is not a ‘dependent’ as per the said Rules of 1996. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to dependents of a deceased Government servant is to relieve the family from distress and destitution on account of the death of sole bread earner of the family.

"This Court is firmly of the view that intention and purpose of the legislature will be gainfully achieved if the benefit of compassionate appointment is extended in such a situation as mentioned above to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that Almighty was quite harsh with the petitioner in comparison to respondent No. 5, who is reasonably settled after marriage in her matrimonial home. The endeavour of the lawmakers and the Court is to give relief to a person who is facing such a situation as has been faced by the petitioner in the present case,” the bench said, while rejecting the claim of the daughter of the deceased teacher.

The petitioner married Vinit Singhvi, son of Ratan Lal Singhvi & Santosh Singhvi in 2017. Santosh Singhvi was working as Senior Teacher, Government Sr. Secondary School, Heerakhari, District Chittorgarh; she was found COVID Positive and died on May 01, 2021. The husband of the petitioner was also found COVID+ and was admitted to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara where he passed away in May, 2021.

In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in the Education Department. While the application of the petitioner was pending in the department, she lost her father-in-law too. The court was told that she is left with only two minor daughters to be brought up for which there are no means of maintenance and livelihood. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Government vide order dated September 20, 2021.

After the rejection of the petitioner's application, Monika Jain — daughter of Santosh Singhvi, also submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment claiming herself entitled for appointment being a married daughter. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing crisis situation as the sole bread earner of the family i.e. her mother-in-law had passed away

The counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the division bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Sushila Devi (DB Civil Spl. Appeal (Writ) No.383/2023.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Monika Jain submitted that as per Clause (c)(iv) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996, she being a married daughter is a “dependent” as per the definition of the dependent given in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 and therefore, her case may be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The court noted that although by virtue of Notification dated October 28, 2021 “married daughter” has been inserted into the ambit of “Dependent” as per Rule 2 (c) of Rules of 1996, Monika Jain is living with her husband after marriage in the matrimonial home, therefore, she is not in a situation of crisis, whereas, the condition of the petitioner is not only precarious but the same is distressful.

“In the instant case, there is nothing on record which shows that the petitioner was not dependent on her mother-in-law, besides this, an exceptional situation has been created which requires the liberal construction of ‘Dependent’ under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 to include the ‘Daughter in law’,” said the court.

The court opined that in case of compassionate appointment, when there are rival contentions between two or more persons, the competitive hardship is required to be seen for the grant of compassionate appointment and the same lies in favour of the petitioner.

“In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is more than deserving and even stands on much better footing than the claim of the daughter (respondent No.5) in the present set of facts,” the court said.

The Court relied on the State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Sushila Devi and directed the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds on a suitable post within a period of four weeks.

Case Title: Smt. Nirjara Singhvi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors

Click Here to Read/Download Order