'Widowed Daughter Falls Within Definition Of Dependent Family', Allahabad HC Directs Compassionate Appointment

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justices Rajan Roy, and Om Prakash Shukla granted relief to a widowed daughter seeking appointment to the post her deceased father based on compassionate grounds. The Court held that even after marriage or widowhood, a woman would continue to be a daughter. Moreover, if she was widowed before the death of her father, she would for all legal and practical purposes be included in the definition of 'daughter', although widowed, on the date of her father's death.

Background:

The Petitioner, a widowed daughter sought appointment in place of her deceased father on compassionate grounds. Her father used to serve the post of T.O.A. (T.L.) in the office of General Manager (Telecom) and expired on 12.11.2011. She submitted affidavits of her family members stating that they had no objection if the Petitioner was appointed to the post of her deceased father. Along with that, she also submitted an affidavit stating that she used to live with her father and her minor son after being widowed and appointing her to the post would enable her to take care of her family members to the best of her capability. Moreover, she also was a Graduate and had a Library Science Certificate.

It was conveyed to her by the Assistant General Manager (HR), Office of General Manger (Telecom) that as a widowed daughter, she could not find a place in the eligibility criteria and accordingly her application was rejected.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Relying on the decision taken in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi, the Tribunal perused the guidelines/schemes issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for compassionate appointment and held that as per the eligibility criteria, the Petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment. It also held that the Tribunal could not perform executive functions and frame rules and guidelines. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Dissatisfied by the decision, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties:

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner would come under the definition of a family member because after her husband's death, she had been dependent on her father. Moreover, being a widow did not deprive her of the status of being a daughter, the Counsel stated.

To justify this contention, the Counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717 and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi (2011) SCC OnLine All 152.

It was also submitted that the case of the Petitioner was to be placed before the Circle High Power Committee as mandated by guidelines of the respondents, however, the same was not done.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that as per the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under The Central Government, the deceased widow was not a 'Dependent Family Member' of the deceased employee. It was submitted that since the policy did not make an inclusion of such nature, the Tribunal or Court could not interfere with the same.

Findings of the Court:

The Court held that it was to be determined whether a "widowed daughter" of a deceased family member fell under the definition of 'Dependent Family Members' as per the Scheme of the Compassionate Appointment. Primarily, it was to be assessed as to whether the Petitioner was dependent upon the deceased family member and secondly the economic or financial condition of the family also needed to be determined to establish whether the Petitioner could claim entitlement to the post on the ground of Compassionate Appointment.

The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunita vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 2 SCC 380, wherein it was held'

'A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout his life'.

Noting that the relevant rules pertaining to the Government of U.P. which were similar to the guidelines dated 09.10.1998, had been interpreted so as to include a 'married daughter' within the definition of 'daughter', the Court cited the decision in Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another (2015) SCC OnLine All 6776, wherein the eligibility of "married daughters" for compassionate appointment under the "Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 was considered. Followed by another reference of the decision in Smt. Neha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another, the Court held that "unmarried daughters", "married adopted daughters", "widowed daughters", and "widowed daughter-in-law" were included as dependent family matters, however "married daughter" was also included in an expansive and inclusive interpretation of the meaning of 'family'.

Referring to another decision in Meenakshi Dubey vs. Madhya Pradesh Poorv Chhetra Vidut Vitran Company Ltd. (2020) SCC OnLine MP 383, the Court held that the right of a “married daughter” to claim appointment on compassionate grounds was upheld. It was held that depriving the married daughter of entitlement on compassionate grounds would be violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (a) of Constitution of India.

The Court cited several other judgments including State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Purnima Das and Others, Uddham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bench Ltd. and Others Vs. Anjula Singh and Others, R Jayammo Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and Another, R Govindmmal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni Vs. Superintending Engineer Pune Irrigation Project Circle and Others and many more and held that the Courts in these decisions gave purposive and expansive interpretation to the meaning of the term 'family member'. The Court observed that even married daughters were included in the meaning of dependent family members.

The Court perused the Office Memo dated 09.10.1998 of the Government of India, Office Memo dated 27.06.2007 and the main guidelines dated 09.10.1998 and observed that the main guidelines contained the provisions for entitlement to compassionate appointment, and not the Office Memorandum. As mentioned in Note-I of the Guidelines, a married daughter was included, however, such married daughter was to be dependent upon her father/mother on the date of his/her death.

In relation to whether a 'widowed daughter' could be included in the definition of 'married daughter', the Court opined that there was nothing to negate that a widowed daughter could be considered within the definition. It was held that in case of a widowed daughter, the Petitioner would have also lost her source of livelihood and therefore it could be inferred that she was dependent on her father unless there was evidence to prove that she had other sources of income.

Observing that 'widowed daughter' would be covered in the definition of 'daughter' contained in Note-I of the Guidelines dated 09.10.1998 if she was dependent upon her deceased father or mother on the date of his/her death, the Court allowed the Petition and directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Case Title: WRIT - A No. - 7862 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Punita Bhatt Alias Punita Dhawan

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) New Delhi

Click Here To Download Order/Judgement