'Widowed Daughter' Stands On Better Footing Than 'Married Daughter’ To Fall Within The Definition Of ‘Dependent’ In Compassionate Appointment Scheme: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that 'widowed daughter' rather than 'married daughter' stands on better footing to be included within the definition of 'dependent' for the purpose of compassionate appointment scheme.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order whereby Petitioner's application claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of being widow daughter was dismissed.

The division-bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, "We are of the opinion that a 'widowed daughter' stands on a better footing than a married daughter as, prima facie with the loss of her husband, she also loses her source of livelihood unless of course in the facts of a given case it is found that she is herself employed or has other means of sustenance which are adequate to sustain her in which case she may not have been dependent upon her father, but, unless this is proved, it would be reasonable to draw an inference that she was dependent upon her father unless of course there is evidence to the contrary."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tripathi and Respondent was represented by Advocate Pratul Kumar Srivastava.

The Petitioner challenged the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal filed by the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of being widow daughter has been dismissed. The Tribunal had observed that as per the guidelines, widowed daughter is not enumerated in the list of eligible persons and the Tribunal cannot enter into the shoes of the Executive in framing of rules and guidelines.

Counsel for the Petitioner's submission was two fold; firstly, as a widowed daughter she did not lose the status of being a 'daughter' of her father/parent and after death of her husband she was dependent upon her father for subsistence, as such, she would come under the definition of family. He cited Supreme Court's verdict in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi. The second submission was that the petitioner’s case was never placed before the Circle High Power Committee as mandated by guidelines of the respondents.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents argued that the impugned order passed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is based on a Note by virtue of which, the meaning of ‘Dependent Family Member’ as per the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment under The Central Government issued by Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) is mentioned, wherein a ‘widow daughter’ of deceased employee is not included as ‘Dependent Family Member’ of the deceased employee. It was also submitted that the Court or the Tribunal cannot include a widow within the definition of 'Dependent Family Member' when the Policy decision on the subject does not include her.

The Court at the outset noted that the point for its consideration was whether a "widow daughter" falls under the definition of ‘Dependent Family Members’ or not as per the Scheme of the Compassionate Appointment.

The prerequisites to be satisfied for being entitled for consideration for such appointment are that the applicant should be a family member and should be dependent upon the deceased employee and once the conditions are satisfied, the economic or financial condition of the family, including the dependent, assumes significance, and is required to be assessed. The Court noted that it is not disputed that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee, however, she was married and became a widow prior to the death of her father, the deceased employee.

The Court observed that the object of the scheme for compassionate appointment is to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of an employee dying-in-harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of an employee from financial destitution and to help it to get over the emergency. 

"As per Note-1 of the scheme, the words 'dependent family member' has been defined. As per clause (c) thereof, definition of 'daughter' is an inclusive one which includes 'adoptive daughter'. The foremost question is as to whether the petitioner was daughter of the deceased employee on the date of his death or not in terms of this definition. The fact that she was born out of the wedlock of her parents one of whom was the deceased employee i.e. her father is not in dispute. Even after her marriage, she continued to be daughter of her father," the court observed further and cited Supreme Court ruling in Sunita vs. Union of India wherein the court had succinctly summarized the status of a daughter vis-à-vis other relatives.

Regarding the entitlement of a married daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment, the court noted that it has been interpreted so as to include a 'married daughter' within the definition of 'daughter' contained therein.

The Court looked into a slew of judgements and further observed that although "unmarried daughters", "married adopted daughters", "widowed daughters", and "widowed daughter-in-law" were mentioned to mean a dependent of a family, however, the Court later giving an expansive and inclusive interpretation of the meaning of ‘family’ also included "married daughter" within its fold as dependent.

It also pointed out that the adjective ‘unmarried’ before daughter, has been stuck down as violative of the Constitution. It also inferred that various High Court judgements have given an expansive interpretation to the meaning of the term 'family member' to even include married daughters within the meaning of family of dependent

"The word 'daughter' used in the scheme is not preceded by the word 'unmarried' just as the word 'son' used in the scheme is not preceded by the word 'unmarried'. The absence of such prefix gives a reasonable basis to conclude that this definition does not exclude a 'married daughter', especially as the definition is an inclusive one, therefore, it has to be given an expansive meaning keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved," the court observed.

"Moreover, if a married son is eligible for compassionate appointment if he was dependent upon his father at the time of his death unless he had his own means of livelihood, then, there is no reason as to why a married daughter who is similarly placed, that is, if she was dependent upon her father, should not be eligible for compassionate appointment under the aforesaid scheme. Any distinction in this regard would be without any reasonable basis and without any link to the object sought to be achieved, therefore, it would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination by the State against any citizen on grounds, inter alia, of sex. Likewise, Section 16(2) prohibits such discrimination on the grounds of sex in respect of any employment or office under the State," the court further observed.

The Court was thus of the view that any action/clauses of the policy which deprives a widowed daughter from a right of consideration for compassionate appointment if she was dependent upon her father, the deceased employee would run contrary to Article 14, 15, 16 read with 39A of the Constitution of India. 

It went on to observe that 'widowed daughter' would fall under the definition of 'Dependent'.

"Consequently, this Court holds that a '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 question of dependency is one of fact which is to be determined by the authorities. If such widowed daughter was not dependent upon her father then she would not be entitled to compassionate appointment under the guidelines," the court ruled.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Punita Bhatt Alias Punita Dhawan vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Bsnl) And 3 Others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, Advocate Bhavini Upadhyay, Advocate Sandhya Dubey 

Respondent- Advocate Pratul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Gyanendra Singh Sikarwar 

Click here to read/ download Judgement: